To say, or not to say, that is the question

[ban-all-sheds]

And who snitched to him in the first place?

It's not "snitching" - it's being a responsible, moral member of society fulfilling one's duty

 

[^woody^]

There is no duty to go around snitching on everything you see. Nelson did not expect that.

 

[PBC_1966]

And don't assume that because a law limits what you in your verging-on-madness anarchic zeal would like to do it is wrong.

Of course not. Sometimes the law and morality coincide. And sometimes there are things which are illegal but not immoral, or vice versa. Sometimes doing the right thing actually means breaking the law.

Leaving aside the fact that in some cases they can actually be harmful rather than beneficial,

Good grief - do you really think that you can get away with that discredited argument?

Discredited? Do you dispute that there are cases in which somebody comes out of a crash worse off (or dead) because he was buckled up?

If people want to eat badly or go out in a snowstorm in just shirt and shorts and risk the detrimental effects of either, what business is that but their own?

None whatsoever, for as long as they live on their own and do not partake in anything related to society.

So are you saying that you would approve of laws which dictate what people must eat, what clothes they must wear to keep warm or cool, what medicines they must take, and so on? Where exactly would you draw the line at the state dictating what people must do for their own good and the supposed overall benefit to society?

That's the trouble if you accept just one law which infringes upon personal freedom in an attempt to either protect a person against his own foolishness or because you believe it's necessary for society as a whole. That sets a precedent for more such laws to follow.

But as soon as they want one crumb of benefit from being in a society then they give up the right for what they do to be anybody's business but their own.

As above.

I don't, which is why I'm advocating referring it to people who can determine that, and not advocating unilateral action to put a stop to it.

So are you worried about whether somebody might be putting himself in danger, or only about whether some regulation or other is being broken? It sounds very much like the latter.

 

[noseall]

I could say exactly the same to, and about, you.

Yes you could. But you wouldn't be asking me to lick dog poo off your shoes if it had been your son/wife/loved one I saved from a smoke filled building, would you.
However, the mods HAVE edited my posts but they seem to have left the true bits in. Funny that eh Bas.

Truth v's supposition.

 

[noseall]

Summing up:
The people for snitching would do so as long as it means only having to make an anonymous phone call and that it does not effect their daily lives but has maximum disruption to those being snitched upon. At no time (God forbid!) shall the snitcher come face to face with the victim.

The people against snitching are happy to let the grown ups decide their own fate. And at no time are we going to start pulling people out of hot air balloon baskets, or have a sit down on a sky divers runway, or interfere with someone elses enjoyment of life in general.

I'm sure all of us will still carry on doing worth while moral stuff that I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

As I've said before, the situation in a work environment is slightly different from a person's leisure time.

If someone wants to do a skydive, go cliff diving, or white water rafting, they have every right to do so.

The issue in a work environment is that an employee may be putting themselves in a situation where regulations are in place to protect them. This may be due to coercion on the part of the employer or a fear of saying no to their employer. When jobs are thin on the ground, and people's skills and qualifications are limited, they may be more likely to take risks both against their better judgement and that H&S law protects them from.

Does this mean we all have a moral duty to pick up the phone and inform the HSE if we see working practices that we believe to be in contravention of H&S laws?

There is still the question of whether the action(s) being witnessed are being carried out with free will. If an employee is knowingly contravening H&S law of their own free will, do we have a moral duty to protect them from themselves?
If we believe we don't, do we have a moral duty to protect their wife or children as the employee's actions may well have a negative impact on their well being. If we believe this to be the case then do we have a moral duty to the family of an extreme sports enthusiast?
What if we do what we believe to be morally right and report an H&S contravention, and this leads to businesses closing down or being forced to make redundancies, possibly affecting many families? Is reporting the incident still the right thing to do?
This is where probability and consequence should be considered. There is a wealth of evidence that sometimes unintended consequences of good intentions can be worse than had nothing been done.
For the people who would report a perceived contravention, are they making this decision because they believe laws are being broken or because of their concern for the individual breaking the law? Would they speak up if a DIYer was making the same choices? The risks and potential outcomes are the same, but no laws are being broken.
Would there be other courses of action that would lead to a better overall outcome than reporting to the HSE? Talking to the employees? Talking to the employer? Talking to the client? Or is it simply that picking up the phone is the easiest option and allows the observer to "feel" that they have done the right thing?

The question is are there too many unknowns for an observing individual to be certain that reporting a perceived H&S contravention is the right thing to do.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is no duty to go around snitching on everything you see. Nelson did not expect that.

It's not "snitching" - it's being a responsible, moral member of society fulfilling one's duty

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And don't assume that because a law limits what you in your verging-on-madness anarchic zeal would like to do it is wrong.

Of course not. Sometimes the law and morality coincide. And sometimes there are things which are illegal but not immoral, or vice versa. Sometimes doing the right thing actually means breaking the law.

Discredited? Do you dispute that there are cases in which somebody comes out of a crash worse off (or dead) because he was buckled up?

No, but your fatuous and discredited argument was used by people like you when the law was first proposed. Utter nonsense like "being thrown clear" was often bandied about. Since nobody could possibly know in advance if they were going to have the rare type of accident where they would be better off, and not the much more likely sort where they would be worse off, it could not be used to decide whether to use a belt or not at the start of any particular journey, and therefore it cannot be used to decide if the law should exist.

None whatsoever, for as long as they live on their own and do not partake in anything related to society.

So are you saying that you would approve of laws which dictate what people must eat, what clothes they must wear to keep warm or cool, what medicines they must take, and so on? Where exactly would you draw the line at the state dictating what people must do for their own good and the supposed overall benefit to society?

That's the trouble if you accept just one law which infringes upon personal freedom in an attempt to either protect a person against his own foolishness or because you believe it's necessary for society as a whole. That sets a precedent for more such laws to follow.

Blah blah blah.

The question was "Should one report what could well be a breach of H&S regulations?". Side tracking that to a general discussion about what is for the common good with an idealogue who is rabidly opposed to any sort of regulations in any field, and any sort of society, is pointless.

It sounds very much like the latter.

And it sounds like you too think that that sort of salami-slicing is to the benefit of this discussion. I wonder if you have an explanation of what you hope to achieve by it, or if you too are just doing it for your own amusement.

 

[SimonH2]

i don't need to prove it, nothing did happen, there's ya proof

Actually, no there isn't the proof - just think about it for a moment. Work was stopped, safety measures - the ones the contractors themselves said were needed - and work resumed. Now, you prove that had they not stopped, no incident would have happened - oh you can't wait ...

and why bother making the post in the first place?

Curiosity. And I have to say, the "discussion" leads to the inevitable conclusion that there are some sad b'stards about.

you'd already decided yourself what the right answer was

Yes, I know what the right answer is for me. I accept that different people will have different thresholds - I have to admit I wasn't expecting standards quite as low as expressed on here. Now I understand why there are so many prosecutions after people have been killed or seriously injured.

im guessing all the people that voted no are professionals that work on sites all the time and are quite competent about what they do

Or in some cases, are the complete diskwads the H&S regulations are there to protect against. Certainly some opinions stated here indicate that some people really don't give a **** about their own, or anyone else's, safety.

, and the ones voted yes are the ones that look up and see a guy on a high roof and think that looks dangerous ill pick up the phone and report them

Or the ones that look up, see a situation where we recognise there are guidelines, and can see that what's going on doesn't even come close. And rather than wait for something to happen - by which time it's far too late - decide to do something about it.

It is interesting to see how the poll has levelled up a bit, after initially going quite a bit down the "let 'em die" viewpoint.

Summing up:

Wrongly !

The people for snitching would do so as long as it means only having to make an anonymous phone call and that it does not effect their daily lives but has maximum disruption to those being snitched upon. At no time (God forbid!) shall the snitcher come face to face with the victim.

Supposition, and insults about the persons motives. The fact that you call it "snitching" shows that you treat with disdain anyone with the morality to speak up.

The people against snitching are happy to let the grown ups decide their own fate.

I think only certain "hardcore" people here refuse to accept that "freedom of choice" isn't actually all that high when it comes to keeping your job. How "free" is the choice when it may well come down to the choice between "risk life and limb" vs "put roof over head and food on table for family" ? Go on, claim that's never the case - if you want to prove beyond doubt that you're out of touch.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[SimonH2]

The issue in a work environment is that an employee may be putting themselves in a situation where regulations are in place to protect them. This may be due to coercion on the part of the employer or a fear of saying no to their employer. When jobs are thin on the ground, and people's skills and qualifications are limited, they may be more likely to take risks both against their better judgement and that H&S law protects them from.

Exactly - the "free" choice between taking a chance and providing for the family.

Does this mean we all have a moral duty to pick up the phone and inform the HSE if we see working practices that we believe to be in contravention of H&S laws?

I don't advocate that any minor transgression means reporting it. Every situation has it's own factors.

Would there be other courses of action that would lead to a better overall outcome than reporting to the HSE? Talking to the employees? Talking to the employer? Talking to the client? Or is it simply that picking up the phone is the easiest option and allows the observer to "feel" that they have done the right thing?

The question is are there too many unknowns for an observing individual to be certain that reporting a perceived H&S contravention is the right thing to do.

I know others will "not agree", but I believe that "reporting" should be the default - not necessarily to "the authorities". As you say, there are several options available - from the direct (eg just suggesting "should you be ... without ..."), to phoning the employer, or phoning the customer (as in this case), or in extreme contacting HSE.
In this case, I decided that contacting the customer was the best course of action. It's a company that due to some of the work it does needs to understand the risks of working at height and mitigating them - hence they have someone who's job includes making an assessment of the right (and wrong!) way to do things. Had the contractors not been doing anything wrong, then they wouldn't have been stopped from working - but they were by their own statements and so were stopped until they dealt with it.
Has it been reported to HSE ? Not by me, whether anyone else did I don't know - that would be for them to decide. Did I think about filing a RIDDOR ? Yes I did think about it, but I haven't because ...
The contractor has had a job stopped. If the workers were ignoring employers instructions then the boss will know about it and so is likely to be a bit better at checking up on them in future. If the workers were doing it with the boss's blessing then he's had "a shot across the bows" and hopefully he'll be a bit more careful in future. Filing a RIDDOR would just create some red tape with pretty much the same outcome.
So what if no improvement happens - ie on the next job they do exactly the same thing with (either explicitly or tacitly) the boss's blessing, or without ? Filing a RIDDOR won't stop that - all it would do is, if an incident did happen, provide evidence of a prior issue. It won't help whoever went splat on the concrete.
I work in a small company, I've run a small company in the past - I'm not completely ignorant of the pressures they face, contrary to what some people here seem to think.

 

[^woody^]

Isn't it bizarre how someone makes a poll, invites people to express a view, and then proceeds to tell those that selected a different opinion to his, that they have no morals or ethics?

 

[^woody^]

blah

Really

blah

Bored

Blah

Now

Blah

With

Blah

This

Blah

Stupid

Blah

Pedantic

Blah

Way

Blah

Of

Blah

Responding

 

[Chud]

I got bored of wading through all the tit-for-tat so apologies if someone has raised this and I've missed it while skimming the remainder but something seems to have been missed. Based on what we know of this it seems to me that there was a clear risk not just to the workers but more importantly to 3rd parties - sheet materials (be it OSB, polycarbonate or solar panels) can be lethal if caught by the wind.

Surely if the wind is strong enough to cause someone to fall over whilst carrying a panel (and it's not just one random strong gust) then the contractors should have assessed the risk and postponed the work until it was safe to carry out regardless of harnesses etc. OK I don't know how big the panels were but they don't sound small.

My take on this is that you don't need to be in a trade to call out on a risk that is glaringly obvious e.g. sheet materials + high winds, deep holes/trenches dug in pavements etc. with no barrier/visual warning (even if a wheelbarrow in the way) or (no joke in Russia) uncovered access holes to boiling hot sewers. Yes - if you're in a trade you should know what risks you're taking better than Joe public, you're probably aware of far more than mr nosey parker and have mitigated them accordingly.

The guys in the OP obviously weren't going about their work in an acceptable manner as they were sent off site with a kick in the a**e.

 

[noseall]

It's not "snitching" - it's being a responsible, moral member of society fulfilling one's duty

As long as you are not putting yourself out though eh Bas. And as long as "fulfilling one's duty" means not interrupting your tea, then you will nobly and courageously do your duty eh, oh gallant one.

 

[noseall]

As you say, there are several options available - from the direct (eg just suggesting "should you be ... without ..."), to phoning the employer, or phoning the customer (as in this case), or in extreme contacting HSE.
In this case, I decided that contacting the customer was the best course of action.

Did you give your name? Was speaking on the phone all you did or did you make yourself known to the workmen in peril?
I'm sure they would like to personally thank you.