Ah - so not good odds then against a bunch of fives, given how much of a knob some of the rabid haters of H&S regulations are.
To say, or not to say, that is the question
- Thread starter SimonH2
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Without the option of talking to anyone on site - a phone call it is thenThe thing is, they can't come on to site to complain without Hi-viz and safety boots in the first place. If they did, they would have to be forcefully removed.
plus it was raining, you dont want to get a sniffle do ya
If a fat pompous bellend with bad breath started telling a load of tradesmen how to do their jobs, you would need to form an orderly -slap-the-interfering-knob- queue and would have members of the public offering hand massages a spit bucket and a corner stool.
Sponsored Links
He'd have more sense.
Some sites - not all sites have such rigid rules, and many have areas you can access (such as the office) without needing it even if the active area does.
Is that from experience ? I can imagine a few site foremen/mangers would forcibly remove an employee who told them to stuff their PPE and stop being a nosey parker. Is that why you're so vocal about itIf they did, they would have to be forcefully removed.
We have a strict, no boots, no hard hat, no knob head, no entry policy.
You would certainly need to phone.
So this "elf-n-safety is a load of b***ocks" person is happy to impose a zero tolerance* policy on elf-n-safety. So presumably he'd give some nosey parker a hard time if they walked past and pointed out to him that half his workforce had ditched their hard hats them ?
Perhaps you'd have been happy if instead of concentrating on the unmitigated working at height risks, I'd just mentioned that they weren't wearing hard hats ? After all, you seem to think that all sites need hard hats, so there can be no cause for complaining that Joe public doesn't have a clue about the risks if he points out the absence of hard hats.
* "zero tolerance" usually equates to "zero thought". Couldn't be arsed to asses the risk so lets just impose some blanket rules.
I think we can see just what sort of person Woody is now - not that we couldn't before.
Perhaps you'd have been happy if instead of concentrating on the unmitigated working at height risks, I'd just mentioned that they weren't wearing hard hats ? After all, you seem to think that all sites need hard hats, so there can be no cause for complaining that Joe public doesn't have a clue about the risks if he points out the absence of hard hats.
* "zero tolerance" usually equates to "zero thought". Couldn't be arsed to asses the risk so lets just impose some blanket rules.
I think we can see just what sort of person Woody is now - not that we couldn't before.
Likewise SimonH2.
I'd rather have Woody looking after my interests any day and twice on Sunday's. At least I'd be able to do a days work.
By all accounts someone who is not a dour, charismatically challenged, pipsqueak in an unfulfilled life.
Even your insults are grey and boring, FFS.
I wonder why they don't allow people to make their own decisions on whether they should wear protective clothing? Surely, if a person is happy to go on site without those then that is their right, and thy should not be stopped from exercising it?
He won't answer, but I would be interested to see if any of his allies have a credible explanation.
If a person chooses to go onto a hazardous site without the required safety equipment then hat person should also accept that if he or she is injured ( where sensible protection would have prevented injury ) then he or she should waive the right to have rescue / treatment processes made available to them.
That said I do say that there people who take protective measure too far, often they insist on protection from non existant hazards.
That said I do say that there people who take protective measure too far, often they insist on protection from non existant hazards.
Well he's "ignored" the question so far.
I do find it "interesting" that people who are vociferous about allowing workers to expose themselves to risk if they want - then see nothing wrong with "absolute" rules on protecting workers from themselves. That was behind my question about hard hats - if I point out that the workers were on the roof without hard hats (and ditto those on the ground where stuff would have ended up if dropped) would that then justify saying something ?
If all his sites have a blanket "hard hat and boots" rule, then the logical inference is that all construction sites justify hard hats and boots - debatable but lets run with it. Since the site I opened this thread with was a construction site (it was a site, and construction works were under way), then presumably it's not unreasonable to assume it would fall under the umbrella "hard hat and boots" rule.
Indeed, and that is (in part) why certain people push back against what they perceive as elf-n-safety sticking it's nose in the way of getting work done. I think I've said it before - I think we can all come up with examples of "silly" elf-n-safety pronouncements. Indeed it got so bad that the HSE even went so far as to make a public statement about it - along the lines of "don't blame us for the idiots".
Sweet.
A "No boots, no hard hat, no entry" policy is common, and it means that you need boots and a hard hat to be allowed in.
So the policy described by Woody means you also need to be a knob head.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
