Coppering/barrel making & thoughts on the safety industry...

[ondablade]

Here's one to liven things up, that's maybe a little interesting too. :mrgreen:

Take a look at this video of barrel making/coppering from the Guninness brewery in Dublin pre-WW2 (complete with US tourist commentary in the background): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdI8rAXZA-Y It really brings out how back then even quite high volume woodworking relied almost entirely on the skill of the wood worker with hand tools - there wasn't much reliance on machine tools for accuracy!

I can't help thinking that the guy hacking away with great precision with the cleaver (not sure what you call it) brings some perspective to the health and safety debate - this given how people are now panicking about even quite heavily guarded machines, and huge payouts are being made for gormless accidents.

I'm not arguing against improvements in safety, but it really does show that 'safety' is highly relative.

In the form we experience it - as initiatives increasingly driven mostly by sectional greed, insane legalities and the appetite for personal power and earning capability of ever more people, professions and institutions, rather than by any serious concern for the welfare of the small guy (whose judgement is anyway discarded as an irrelevance) - it risks moving from fulfilling a genuine need to becoming an insatiable monster that will keep on upping the ante regardless of the broader consequences.

We like to think that systems of competing self interests are self balancing, but the lesson of history (and the recent economic crash) is that they always get out of balance and kill or injure the host they feed on.

My pennyworth is to suggest before we reflexively pile on the bandwagon, knock 'dangerous' practices and mutter 'there oughter be a law' that we (a) focus on what's best for the guy in question, (b) require him/her to take some responsibility for his/her own self, (c) credit him/her with some intelligence and (d) ensure that we're genuinely acting in his/her interests, and in the interests of our society.

i.e make sure that our motivation is genuinely and in the broadest sense both wise and compassionate....

:wink: Fire away...

 

[ondablade]

Errm. Pardon my B.O. Just to clarify. The first (cliched) thought the video brought to mind was that it'd make today's safety lobby flip - quickly followed by the insight that today's view of the topic is frighteningly time specific and lacking in any serious concern for practicality, or for the welfare of others.

Most industries automatically oppose all safety improvements on cost grounds, while at the other extreme many individuals are ready to engage in the crassest of stupidity - but still their first thought if they get injured is 'who can I sue'. (how can it be otherwise when an authoritarian system built on the 'we know best what's good for you' principle continuously conditions them to think that safety is somebody else's responsibility?)

Then add the middle group that feeds off the consequences of accidents (I hesitate to use terms like 'work on safety') - the ambulance chasing legal and other professions, politicians and public servants feeding the hype to justify their role, makers cynically selling dust systems that offer little or no protection against fine particles, makers fitting guarding they know is unusable (in the knowledge that when people take it off they leave them free of responsibility), layers of safety experts and regulatory people with no practical experience but happy to pronounce to all and sundry while clinging to well paid jobs with the support of all the others with a vested interest in making safety an industry. Not to mention the armies of 'holier than thou' Joe's who will grab just about any excuse available to score one up on the other guy.

Those of us not directly involved tend to either do our own thing, or just swallow the medicine and get on with it - we're pretty much neutral on the topic.

This lunatic mind made but in all senses impractical reality is creating a younger generation that often sees woodworking as being like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in.

The point is not to preach, but look at it this way - we're well on the way to creating a context where as a result of self interest (subtle and not so subtle) woodworking will become impossible. Talk about a society with a death wish...

Isn't it about time that we dropped our tendency to simplistic and knee-jerk attitudes on safety and started to (a) take responsibility for ourselves, (b) work our thinking through, and (c) realise that real safety is about truly caring for ourselves and others??? (political correctness is anyway surely an issue with much bigger implications for our futures than woodworking)

 

[wills-mill]

I never really made the connection- a 'vested interest' must now usually means someone in a hi-vis tabard with a clipboard....


And he's a very skilled worker using a coopers side-axe to trim the lid to size. In today risk assessment culture I would imagine that there would be more worry about the long term occupational health implications of RSI type injuries from the constant battering at his arm and shoulder joints, rather than the short term worries about the possibilities of him chopping a kneecap off.

There's been controversy over the rise in insurance costs over the last few years in Forestry and Tree Surgery- this has been driven mainly by the long term issues that will realistically affect the great majority of people who spend a lifetime in the industry, and not by the costs of the gorey and dramatic momentary accidents.....

 

[Dee J]

In the same vein... saw this link posted on another forum - truely skilled hand tool work - much of it free-hand

http://svtplay.se/v/1371063/oppet_arkiv ... ljud__1923?

I guess the main health and safety system in the hand tool environment is the auto power-off feature!

Dee

 

[ondablade]

I saw that one too Dee, it came through here some time ago. More good stuff. It's quite incredible how capable humans can be come at tasks when they are practiced to the point where the work starts to 'flow'. i.e. does not require conscious thought.

On 'vested interests' and the accident industry Wills. I'm dead serious, and doing my bit to try to bounce people into 'seeing' - into looking with an open mind past the conditioning effect of the message the industry continually broadcasts.

It's pretty sobering if you actually stop swallowing the propaganda, and instead actually think through the likely motivations of most of the various functionaries involved in safety - especially if you ask yourself just how many (few?) might when push comes to shove truly be motivated to help people stay safe.

Then move on to consider the major driving forces in the industry - the ones that truly determine what happens in reality. There's at least the law (which as a confrontational system creating winners and losers inevitably triggers unintended consequences and certainly doesn't deliver 'justice' or fair/nuanced outcomes), the reduction of everything to money (another distortion that ignores most of the total reality), and an all pervading self interest. (of those suing, those providing services/the functionaries, and those in authority/defending/seeking to minimise their spending on safety)

Outcomes normally reflect some balance between these competing interests and their like.

Funny isn't it how the dude doing the work hardly figures in the above, is reduced (regardless of skill level) to some sort of generalised cardboard cut-out, and is presumed by those in authority to a bit of a moron, fundamentally untrustworthy and incapable of taking responsibility for him/herself. (and generally isn't allowed or required to)

But is required to exercise the height of intelligence and insight in adhering to the dogma of his 'superiors'.

Strange, isn't it this selective take on intelligence? Especially when it's long been known (and proven time and again in sociological and management research) that changes in behaviour only truly follow from changed beliefs on the part of the individual concerned. When authoritarian behaviours have been time and again shown to destroy trust and consequently the ability to teach and influence people. (never mind the practicality that when we expect the worst of people they inevitably deliver)

This isn't an argument for some sort of anarchy, but it is one for a change in values - for a change to a much more people centered, co-operative and caring and much less authoritarian approach to risk...

 

[bugbear]

I saw that one too Dee, it came through here some time ago. More good stuff. It's quite incredible how capable humans can be come at tasks when they are practiced to the point where the work starts to 'flow'. i.e. does not require conscious thought.

On 'vested interests' and the accident industry Wills. I'm dead serious, and doing my bit to try to bounce people into 'seeing' - into looking with an open mind past the conditioning effect of the message the industry continually broadcasts.

It's pretty sobering if you actually stop swallowing the propaganda, and instead actually think through the likely motivations of most of the various functionaries involved in safety - especially if you ask yourself just how many (few?) might when push comes to shove truly be motivated to help people stay safe.

Then move on to consider the major driving forces in the industry - the ones that truly determine what happens in reality. There's at least the law (which as a confrontational system creating winners and losers inevitably triggers unintended consequences and certainly doesn't deliver 'justice' or fair/nuanced outcomes), the reduction of everything to money (another distortion that ignores most of the total reality), and an all pervading self interest. (of those suing, those providing services/the functionaries, and those in authority/defending/seeking to minimise their spending on safety)

Outcomes normally reflect some balance between these competing interests and their like.

Funny isn't it how the dude doing the work hardly figures in the above, is reduced (regardless of skill level) to some sort of generalised cardboard cut-out, and is presumed by those in authority to a bit of a moron, fundamentally untrustworthy and incapable of taking responsibility for him/herself. (and generally isn't allowed or required to)

But is required to exercise the height of intelligence and insight in adhering to the dogma of his 'superiors'.

Strange, isn't it this selective take on intelligence? Especially when it's long been known (and proven time and again in sociological and management research) that changes in behaviour only truly follow from changed beliefs on the part of the individual concerned. When authoritarian behaviours have been time and again shown to destroy trust and consequently the ability to teach and influence people. (never mind the practicality that when we expect the worst of people they inevitably deliver)

This isn't an argument for some sort of anarchy, but it is one for a change in values - for a change to a much more people centered, co-operative and caring and much less authoritarian approach to risk...

Ah you the same guy who said he didn't want to preach!?

BugBear

 

[ondablade]

Pardon if it seems that way Bear, twas not the plan. That said I'm not clear how setting out a view on some of the conflicted thinking at the heart of the 'safety' industry amounts to preaching.

Its use of the 'nanny knows best' tactic (which de-facto excludes worker skill, initiative and motivation from the safety equation) is surely one of the greatest threats facing craft activity today.

Just think for a moment of the highly selective and negative light it paints it in, the result in terms public attitudes, and the way these devalue vocational work in our societies.

But then why bother with crafts when as a b(w)anker you can have a crack at getting rich while bringing down western civilisation?

I guess I'd been hoping that the ball might have been played, and not the man - that some constructive debate could have followed....

 

[samharber]

In defence of HSE: Everyone has the right to not be pressured into unsafe work practices by their employer.

Legislation to force employers to adopt safe working practices is a good thing. I work for a construction/engineering company, and we get regular bulletins of things that have cocked up badly when people have not followed the guidance issued for particular jobs.

 

[ondablade]

Of course people screw up Sam, but that's of the nature of things - and of course too people should not be pressured into unsafe work practices. And yes, there are instances where the law helps a lot.

The law however is a very blunt tool, and when (generally in response to fear of liability - and not from a genuine concern to prevent accidents) the typical authoritarian and bureaucratic safety regime is screwed down ever tighter the first casualty is the freedom of choice of the guy/gal doing the work.

Which in turn feeds into de-motivation, resistance, and a sense on the part of the worker that he/she is not responsible for his/her own safety - not to mention the creation of a heavy handed, bureaucratic, dictatorial, anti-social and much less productive and/or creative work environment/culture.

It also creates a false 'group think' reality bubble that typically fixates on the wrong factors, and eliminates the possibility of a broader and more co-operative approach to safety. e.g. When the system fixated on speed as the means to reduce road accidents (very arguably enabled by knee jerk politics, and for almost entirely selfish and/or financial reasons - because it certainly wasn't backed by credible data) then suddenly meaningful education and the monitoring of pretty much every other aspect of driver behaviour disappeared.

Not to mention that (in the resulting goldfish bowl) reductions in the limits/more cameras became the only possible response to accidents. i.e. when outcomes are poor as a result of targeting the wrong issues, then bureaucracy inevitably (instead of reviewing the original strategy) defaults to applying an even more extreme version of it - to absurdity.

The other major consequence of legal and bureaucratic involvement has been the blame culture (with responsibility stripped away from the worker then it has to be the employer's fault) - this worsened by ambulance chasing legal firms.

That's not to say that some sort of legal place of last resort isn't needed in the case of employers and/or workers that can only respond to compulsion - and the construction field you mention is a often a bit of a Wild West scene.

But without genuine values (care for the worker, and an eye on the practicalities), wisdom and a co-operative approach driving it (to bring balance) the safety monster is a Pandora's box. The bureaucrats and other vested interests meanwhile won't easily let go of the power and other interests they have accumulated.

This isn't a matter of high fallutin' theory - the claims culture alone has long since (as I know from experience as a manager in manufacturing) while doing little for safety become such a major source of waste in most large organisations that it has serious implications for their competitiveness and morale.

And guess what? It's always the most authoritarian and dictatorial organisations that have the greatest problems in this regard....

 

[Finial]

OK. I'll bite.

H&S law in the UK boils down roughly to the following:

Employers have to ensure the health and safety of their employees as far as reasonably practicable. That takes into account cost and practical issues. This means that sensible precautions are compulsory. It includes a reasonable amount of training, instruction and supervision, which in turn must take into account existing skills of an experienced worker.

Businesses of any kind, including the self employed, have to protect the public from their activities as far as reasonably practicable.

Employers and the self employed have to protect themselves as far as reasonably practicable. Some see this as a freedom issue, others see it as ensuring a level playing field so employers are not undercut by irresponsible sole traders, others see it as a means to cut down on NHS costs and therefore taxes.

Employees have to cooperate with H&S instructions from their employer.

There are many detailed regulations but all they do really is clarify the above.

To me, this seems very reasonable and not harmful to business in any way. You want something more flexible and less onerous. So what would you change, and what to?

In practice, enforcement is minimal and decreasing, prosecutions are rare, and non-compliance is rife. Enforcement tends to focus on issues that are known to cause injuries and ill health in the relevant industry.

Meanwhile deaths from asbestos amount to thousands, businesses put untrained operatives on dangerous machines, fail to maintain electrical equipment so that people die, expect employees to work on poorly maintained and slippery floors, etc, etc, etc, etc. Yes I know there are good employers too.

 

[ondablade]

Thanks F . I don't have a ready made alternative model per se, but the root issue in all of it I think is the abuse of power and authority in our societies.

Authority is necessary, as without it organisations cannot function - but authority in the correct sense is earned by demonstrating superior personal characteristics and capabilities. It's in effect ceded or given to those in leadership by those being led out of respect. It's not a one way street though - the roles of both the leaders and the led in any value led society imply reciprocal (and indeed multi directional) responsibilities in the context of trust based working relationships.

We confuse authority with authoritarian behaviours, in that our society, systems and personal values in effect hold that might is right - that power confers an almost absolute right of control over others. We as a result find ourselves unable to trust those we relate to in the work context - whether upwards or downwards in the organisation.

We worsen the situation by in addition deciding that power also confers the right to assign authority (we conceptualise it as the power of position) to individuals we have control over whom we want to control others on our behalf. (this is the essential nature of a hierarchy)

Maybe worst of all we reflexively reach to extend authority by making all sorts of rules and laws. Which would be fine if we could show restraint, and apply them where they are appropriate. But we don't, and we can't because society is full of professional rule and law makers who will seek to justify their existence come what may - so we end up totally bound up in rules and laws that mandate what very often are far from optimum or correct courses of action.

This system (whether in-company, society or the law) relies on fear, punishment and reward to motivate and to exert control - it essentially ignores the wishes of the controlled (except where they can force their influence also by power - unions, essential skills, lack of alternatives etc), and discounts the key role of trust and responsibility. (at best it demands these as of right, and does not entertain the possibility that those in power must in reality earn trust and respect, and behave appropriately if they are to be retained)

This reliance on power to force compliance is the essential problem. People automatically resist compulsion, or at best temporarily comply out of narrow self interest - it's akin to trying to hold a greasy ball bearing in place on top of a shiny ball by pressing down on it with your thumb. The situation is inherently unstable in that if it moves off centre by just a whisker it's gone. Not only that - while you struggle with this one (issue) the remainder do what they like, and the best you can hope to do is to play groups off against each other.

The situation changes dramatically if people are motivated by trust and goodwill, and feel a shared responsibility for the greater good - you go from struggling to control just one at a time as above to having all simultaneously motivated and collectively seeking (via their multiple inputs) to progress the endeavour you lead. With right motivation the need for rules and law almost disappear, at least in the sense that we understand them. What a difference!

We were happy to crow at the collapse of the Soviet Union as a result of excessive centralisation - but the fact is that our societies are headed in exactly the same direction.

We're fixated on ensuring simple and clear lines of control and responsibility. This with the tendency to take far too much control and too many decisions at the top results in the concentration of power into a very few hands, dramatically narrows the range of input, ensures data is second hand and so far removed from the coal face that it doesn't reflect reality, and allows power to trample on realities. The result is not just very poor quality decisions, but also the alienation of large parts of our societies.

No wonder many of our leaders don't command a lot of respect. Fear maybe....

Why do we do this? Basically because in absence of real trust we need to be able to place individuals very clearly in line for punishment/sanctions if they don't deliver. Hierarchy again!

This de-facto devaluation and loss of the (essential and very valuable) input of those managed is one very clear consequence of the abuse of authority in our system. Not only that, there's lots of other sorts of abuse about too - fear and lack of trust quickly lead to a failure of people at all levels (including the leadership) to buy into the objectives of the organisation, and into all sorts of graft, corruption and defensive behaviours. (bureacracy is one result of the latter).

Not only that we've managed to create monumental line up of vested interests which as well as gumming the works all tend to oppose positive change because they fear sanctions and the loss of their unearned advantages.

Reminds you of the banks does it?

The rationale of course is that you can't trust or rely on the smelly unwashed, that you have to resort to naked power to force order. (that was Adolf's argument, wasn't it? Funny how he ended up in a bunker surrounded by reality denying 'yes men' with the oncoming Russians just up the street)

But it's a circular argument. i.e. one that creates the reality that justifies it.

The punters are no more value led nor moral than their 'superiors', but no worse either. Is it any wonder that they often behave in pretty negative ways given what they are exposed to? People are not stupid or blind.

The point is that the deployment of authority for the greater good actually entails enormous restraint, skill and responsibility. It's perhaps well summarised by the old saying to the effect that if you want to change people's behaviour in a given way that you first have to demonstrate it.

The problem with safety as it's currently managed these days is that it in reflects pretty much all of the above.

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to set out a view - even if it does rather go against what society and upbringing does its best to condition us to believe....

 

[Finial]

Ian, health and safety at work can either be voluntary or compulsory. The usual low key enforcement means that much of the time it is voluntary. Of course, people try to avoid ill health and injury if they can. A lot of employers fail to put in place proper controls, relying on staff and public taking care of themselves. Then someone is hurt and if it was because the business has not complied with the law as outlined, enforcement action may sometimes follow. Not always, even in the case of serious injury or death. Nor does a civil claim always result.

If there is a serious risk arising from the activities of a careless business, do you not want a legal framework that enables the authorities to deal with the situation? If there is H&S law, do you not want it enforced? Are you happy for it to be enforced only sometimes, even where there is a significant risk? (Because it is not enforced where there is not a significant risk, although opinions may differ on the degree). What is it you want?

 

[ondablade]

In an ideal society comprised of enlightened people there is no requirement for authority, law or rules F - only information and communication - because goodwill sorts out all of the motivation issues. You end up with what's called a network (or hierarchy-less) organisation or society. In this case the distinction between the players arises out of their roles, which in turn arises out of their capability and care for others, and for the highest good of the organisation, society or whatever in that role.

As at present you end up with managers in roles like business management, strategy creation, safety and other function management and the like; and others in jobs of less scope right down to the guy sweeping the floor - with the configuration of the whole lot determined by capability and aspirations.

The difference is that authority is in the ideal case entirely earned, not sought as a source of personal power, and not gratuitously deployed - it's not strictly necessary anyway in that information will be freely shared, courses of action will be collectively agreed (with individuals inputting as their role and capability require/permit), and beyond that trusting (for good reason) that decisions will take account of all reasonable inputs, and will within the limits of the capability of the organisation be optimum. All consequently both input to (as capable) and support the eventual decisions and actions.

This isn't a flight of fancy as societal and family values normally condition to believe. In the end everybody deep down wants to contribute, do the right thing, and to belong to an organisation or society they can feel good about.

Most of the perceived need for authority arises out of the damage done to people by the misuse of power/authority (lack of care) they experienced in their lives in the first place anyway.

The ideal rapidly breaks down however when these members of the society/organisation out of selfishness, ignorance (lack of knowledge of how to behave) or other negative motivations to varying degrees do not behave correctly as above.

It's clear that law, rules and sanctions are needed to help moderate their behaviour - at least until they come around to a more value based way of seeing.

I probably sound like I'm talking in circles, but I'm trying to describe what is a nuanced balancing of many variables. The issues I'm raising regarding the handling safety, and of issues in society in general arise from not from the necessary existence of law, rules and sanctions, but from bad law and rule making, and from excessive use and a tunnel vision conditioned over-reliance on these.

When a culture or an organisation (or both) becomes bureaucratised people (as said before) inevitably move into an oppositional mindset, no longer identify with the society, organisation, colleagues and others they interface with - and start to behave out of narrow self interest. All sorts of negative behaviours and consequences quickly follow.

If on the other hand their colleagues at all levels consistently demonstrate values, attitudes and behaviours more typical of the network ideal above, then all will to varying degrees move towards similarly ideal caring and behaviours.

This latter requires walking a knife edge on how authority and sanctions are used. You see it in action in the case of good managers that achieve really good results from people - they rarely resort to the overt or heavy handed use of authority, but yet there is always a hint of steel in the background. Against that the manager that routinely overplays the authority and control card inevitable experiences poor performance from people.

This is in essence the nature of the human journey. Each and every one of us is required always to ourselves demonstrate - and in turn seek for the highest (the wisest, most caring and most capable) behaviours from others - because that's the only way to truly influence others for the good, and to achieve this upward trajectory.

Years ago it was common to hear talk of 'good law' (that was law/rules that solved a specific problem, but wasn't riddled with unintended and negative consequences), of the need to keep law at a minimum. (rigid one size fits all rules are never optimum) Many people likewise were very conscious of the negative consequences of excessive bureaucracy or red tape, and kept a firm eye on outcomes, and on the big picture. Teaching by example and the like were also common principles - it was well understood that you couldn't say 'do as I say, don't do as I do' and expect results.

We seem to be losing much of this wisdom - with creeping bureaucratisation and the making politically correct of life we're seeing more and more poor leadership (and leaders are found at all levels of society/organisations) and citizenship (ditto citizens), and their consequences. It's becoming ever harder for individuals to apply common sense and wisdom - in that there's always a 'moral majority'/vested interest/wrong headed superior about looking for an excuse to interfere, and to throw their weight about. We've especially seen the rise of the 'jobsworth' and politically correct knee-jerk opinion - the latter strongly fostered by media hyping and simplistic treatment of politics and societal issues.

I guess I'm arguing for a return to the sanity and balance (and the courage/restraint/common sense to allow the application of these) needed if we're to get off this track and back on an upwards trajectory. It's become really important that we exercise restraint, tolerance and good judgement in life. We do a lot of harm by hopping on politically correct bandwagons, in that we set up pseudo issues for manipulation by the vested interests.

The other issue that underpins all of this is the mistaken idea that not only can accidents somehow be best prevented by use of power and authority by a third party, but also that prevention always justifies this.

It's presumably already fairly clear from the above that the former is not the case, and the latter isn't true either. While of course it's correct that we should do all possible (within reasonable limits) to prevent harming and to help a person avoid having to learn the hard way, it's a fundamental principle of life that they equally have to be allowed enough space that they remain responsible for their own actions.

This too requires a rather different approach to that which is current - law makers, regulatory people and the like will be required stand up to the 'oughter be a law/who's to blame?' brigade if this tendency is to be rolled back.

Here's perhaps the least obvious consequence of the present situation of all. It's surely the case that despite all the grasping for and misuse of authority going on that actually the people in top positions have almost never had so little real power. I doubt that there's too many that regret the re-distribution of wealth that underpins some of this, but it's perhaps in many ways their less than admirable behaviours that have resulted in their failing to gain a compensating respect based 'soft power' as they should have. We may yet pay a heavy price for this weak leadership...

This isn't an argument against clear thinking, practical, balanced and caring improvements to work practices and conditions - but then it's pretty clear that these follow from right motivation as above anyway.

Anyway - I've written enough on the topic at this stage. It'd be interesting to hear the opposing argument if anybody feels that way though....

 

[Stoday]

It'd be interesting to hear the opposing argument if anybody feels that way though....

I'm not sure if my view is opposing that of ondablade's or not. After I had read half of his post I felt that I was losing the will to live and so did not read the remainder.

I worked in third-world countries before I retired and visited a number of factories. I was struck by the number of potential accidents waiting to happen that I saw. Of course, they do not have a H&S system backed up by penalties at law. Fortunately, we have.

 

[Finial]

They don't have Ian's ideal society either.

One of the achievements of the more pernicious parts of the media is to convince many people that health and safety regulation is their enemy.

 

[ondablade]

Society is indeed far from ideal F, and for sure there are elements of the media that fuel a wrong headed approach to regulation. But if when the patient isn't responding we out of bloody mindedness or tunnel vision keep on cranking up the dose of medication (instead of reviewing the diagnosis - or better still asking him where it hurts) he's eventually going to die....

Since we're far from an ideal society law, regulation and authority are all necessary. The issue though is that we're tipping over into a tunnel vision led over-reliance on them that (far from improving safety and society) is in many cases and for all kinds of subtle reasons having the opposite effect.

It's critical that wise regulation and oversight are correctly balanced against personal autonomy and responsibility. The promotion and demonstration of right values is central to the achievement of this balance.

To my mind we're sleep walking into this situation - as we become habituated to living and working in the dog eat dog reality of bureaucracies dominated by vested interests it quickly seems normal. (and even appealing to the autocrat in many of us) We're losing sight of the reality that it's common sense, practicality, goodwill and genuine care for others that actually determine our wellbeing though.....

Merry Christmas to you all. I'm off for a few days.

 

[jeffinfrance]

hi ian,

you're bang on in my opinion.

it's all about control. take away the possibility of a man being able to earn his own crust, he'll be eating out of your hand.

it all started with the enclosure laws in this country, followed by the industrial revolution and the division of labour (which has all but killed skilled labour)

if you were investing 10 years giving someone an apprenticeship, you're gonna take time to teach them the safety aspect. economics 101, you guard your investment. we have all the laws necessary. you could prosecute someone succesfully for allowing his employee to die, using the 10 commandments.

the day you realise, your moral code is higher than that of those you choose to be governed by, you realise that these regulations mean nothing to you. you can, of course, choose to live within certain restrictions to facilitate living within "society". i for one, would be perfectly happy to live in a society which decried murder and even regulated against it. but then, as i dont want to murder anyone, even that regulation would not "apply" to me.

each time you are confronted with a regulation, that seems to be there, just to make your life more difficult, step back and do some research. who brought it in, who really benefits. classic example of this is; who owns the company making the airport backscatter radiation scanners to stop all those nasty terrorists? michael chertoff. who's he? head of homeland security (US). certainly not the only example i could offer. if you dont agree with it, dont abide by it, or challenge it.

all the best, and hope you had a nice xmas,

jeff

 

[Finial]

Jeff, what is wrong with, and who benefits from. the health and safety regulation that says workplace floors must be kept free of slippery substances? Or the one that says a passenger lift has to be properly maintained? Or the one that says electrical equipment has to be earthed if necessary for safety? Or that someone employed to operate a fork lift truck must be trained? Or that employees must not be required to do manual handling work that is likely to injure them?

Not all employers do these things even when there are regulations. Do you think they are more likely to do so if the regulations are repealed, or not enforced?

 

[ondablade]

Hi Jeff, thanks for the comment. I don't know enough about the reality in France to have any real view, but it seems promising to me the way that people seem so quickly to resist being manipulated by the system. Provided that is that it's not just the vested interests fighting it out, with common sense and the punter's view getting kicked out the back door.

I think we may be a bit at cross purposes F, and pardon my coming in ahead of Jeff who should go ahead an answer as he sees fit. Nobody is arguing against reasonable rules and guidelines properly applied.

The problem is though that I think we're increasingly as above losing sight of the need to achieve an optimum balance between compulsion, values and personal responsibility. The sort of thing I'm suggesting is negative is:

(1) Excessive rule making/legislation, and bad law. Attempts to mandate stuff that isn't amenable to this because one size fits all solutions are not remotely optimium, or because the rules conflict with the fundamental reality of the situation.

e.g. it's a very well founded principle that law is no substitute for right values/intentions. Right culture (as in people positive values/beliefs as to how they should behave) is by far the greatest influencer of behaviours in society and organisations, but authoritarian behaviours drive the creation of highly negative cultures.

(2) Creation of authoritarian work cultures through over reliance on rules and law. e.g. if law or regulation is needed to get floors are cleaned in an organisation then something is badly wrong elsewhere. The trouble is that the inveterate 'don't cares' will ignore law/regulations anyway - leaving everybody else to soldier on in the resulting less than pleasant rule bound environment. Which in turn means that the underlying issues are far less likely to get resolved - dictation switches people switch off.

(3) Manipulation of law/regulatory systems by vested interests.

Speed cameras seem a very good demonstration of this sort of overall picture. Measures to improve driver responsibility, skill and judgement, and normal policing (the core issues) have largely been eliminated from the picture, the vested interests have run riot and are blocking common sense based reform, and large numbers of people committing only technical offences are labouring under fines and censures that benefit nobody except the system.

The saying 'knowing the price of everything, and the value of nothing' points towards a similar sort of short sighted thinking that gets applied in another context...

 

[Finial]

.....Nobody is arguing against reasonable rules and guidelines properly applied....

.... The sort of thing I'm suggesting is negative is:

(1) Excessive rule making/legislation, and bad law.....

e.g. it's a very well founded principle that law is no substitute for right values/intentions. Right culture (as in people positive values/beliefs as to how they should behave) is by far the greatest influencer of behaviours in society and organisations....

(2) Creation of authoritarian work cultures through over reliance on rules and law. e.g. if law or regulation is needed to get floors are cleaned in an organisation then something is badly wrong elsewhere.....



Ian, everyone would agree that it would be nice if regulation were unnecessary. I think it is necessary as long as there is unacceptable risk. You seem to say regulation is OK if the law is good. So what exactly is wrong with health and safety law? I ask because I think the mischief-making media and politicians have made a lot of people believe H&S law is a bad thing, but I don't remember anyone but you talking about an alternative. What exactly is excessive or bad about it? How can you have a system where the law applies to employer A because he needs compulsion but not to employer B, because he has the right culture? Yes, there is something fundamentally wrong with a business where people have to work on a greasy floor. There are a lot of slippery floors out there, so how would you get them cleaned?