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

[kazuya]

how would you like it if someone turned up at your place of work ordered everyone to stop work. while they did an investigation because a member of public thought it looked dangerous?
you've got deadlines and wages to pay, and you have to stand around twiddling your thumbs while a H&S inspector tells you the correct way to climb a ladder like the one in the video.

im guessing that by now the panels have been installed?
how many workers were injured or killed?

 

[PBC_1966]

how would you like it if someone turned up at your place of work ordered everyone to stop work. while they did an investigation because a member of public thought it looked dangerous?

That raises a good point: Even if all the work was already been done in full compliance with all the overblown HSE requirements, if work ends up being stopped for half a day while some HSE official pokes around and then says everything's fine, who pays for all the lost time?

 

[^woody^]

then you are a real part of those statistics

I'm also part of road injury statistics for not reporting motoring offences that I see. Also for food poisoning statistics for not checking the neighbour's BBQ hygiene precautions.

I also did not stand up against the bombing in Syria so those deaths are my fault too, and I don't offer up my spare rooms to the homeless blokes I pass every single day.

I buy my shirts from primark, despite their questionable slave labour policy, and I don't check where the wood comes from on the furniture I buy.

Please forgive me.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

What's going on?

This post, which I made a short while ago, and repeated here in it's entirety (i.e. I've not omitted any part of it):

Let's remember that the question was, basically, should you raise concerns when you see something going on which you think is dangerous? Nobody has suggested that such a person, probably inexpert, probably only partially informed, should be able to stop the activity, only whether they should report it to people who do have the expertise, and who can get all the relevant information.


I wonder how many children, now dead, might still be alive if someone had decided that the noises and the cries they could hear were something to do with them? On average two women a week are killed in this country by their current or ex-partner. Anybody like to claim that not one of those deaths might well have been prevented if somebody had decided that what was going on next door was something to do with them?

We live in something called a society, and we all derive benefits from it. With those benefits come responsibilities, one of which is to report violations of the law, or situations which you have good reason to believe are violations, or should be investigated, etc.

It's not being a curtain-twitching nosey parker, it's not interfering with peoples rights, it's being a decent, concerned member of society.

has been removed.

What rules did it break?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Please forgive me.

No.

 

[PBC_1966]

With those benefits come responsibilities, one of which is to report violations of the law, or situations which you have good reason to believe are violations, or should be investigated, etc.

You think that everybody always as a moral duty to report every single violation of the law that he sees, no matter what the law in question?

 

[^woody^]

Please forgive me.

No.

Sorry, SimonH is the higher authority on moral and ethical forgiveness, second only to God, so only his blessing will resolve my pain.

He's **** at DIY though, so don't ask him anything about that.

 

[SimonH2]

What rules did it break?

That message, none. I think some of your others were deemed "over the line" (personally, given some of the other comments, that's debatable) and all your posts in the thread were deleted. There's a comment to that effect.

im guessing that by now the panels have been installed?

So not reading the thread then - yes the job is finished.

how many workers were injured or killed?

Ah that old one. So because someone took a chance and THIS TIME nothing untoward happened then they were right to ignore the risks. If you read the accident reports, they are full of activities that people had been doing for ages with nothing untoward happening. Then luck caught up with them and "this time it was different".
A bit like playing russian roulette and thinking that it must be completely safe if you are still alive after the first go

 

[SimonH2]

We're talking about different things here, and really some of these analogies are a little silly.

If a little old man crosses the road and misjudges your approaching speed so you are in danger of reaching him before he's clear, then obviously you have a moral duty to slow down and avoid him.

Why ? If it's completely OK to ignore people putting themselves at risk, then why is this case different ?

If you see a woman being dragged off the street or a child being abducted, then intervening in whatever way possible is the right thing to do.

But surely, the woman knew the risk before she went on the street, so why is this different ? The child perhaps doesn't understand the risk - but I thought some parties had already stated that not understanding the risks isn't grounds for intervening ?

In some cases he might be unaware of the risk he's taking or planning to take, and might even welcome a little constructive advice - Like standing in the electrical aisle of Lowe's, B&Q or wherever and hearing bad advice being given we might feel it the "friendly" thing to do to say "Excuse me, but..." and explain that what's being suggested is not really the best idea. I've certainly done that before now and been thanked for it.

OK, so what you are saying is it's OK to point out dangers - but wasn't part of the thread that doing so is just being a nosey parker ? Why is this different to pointing out to a building owner that he's got people on his roof acting in what you consider to be a dangerous fashion ?

But running off to the authorities and getting somebody tied up in all that entails when he's just doing something - albeit foolish - which endangers only himself, no.

Well I haven't been off to the authorities.

 

[kazuya]

how many workers were injured or killed?

Ah that old one. So because someone took a chance and THIS TIME nothing untoward happened then they were right to ignore the risks. If you read the accident reports, they are full of activities that people had been doing for ages with nothing untoward happening. Then luck caught up with them and "this time it was different".
A bit like playing russian roulette and thinking that it must be completely safe if you are still alive after the first go [/QUOTE]


what risks?
are you qualified to do a risk assessment then? sorry i didnt know that when you posted
i just thought you were the normal joe public i meet every day that say, "i dont know how you can even step on a ladder it scares me to death"
like i said before just because "you" think something looks dangerous doesn't mean it is.

 

[SimonH2]

what risks?
are you qualified to do a risk assessment then? sorry i didnt know that when you posted

Technically yes, but I didn't bring it up because it's not actually relevant.

i just thought you were the normal joe public i meet every day that say, "i dont know how you can even step on a ladder it scares me to death"
like i said before just because "you" think something looks dangerous doesn't mean it is.

Bzzzt - deviation. I didn't say otherwise - you are answering a statement that I don't recall I've made !
You made a statement, which in the context could only reasonably be interpreted to mean something along the lines of "no-one was hurt, therefore there was no risk". That is a load of *******s and risk doesn't work like that - which is why I pointed out that just because there was no incident this time doesn't mean there was no risk.

If it did work that way, then I'd cash in my premium bonds - I've not won the jackpot this month, or last month, or the month before, or ... By your logic, no matter how long I leave them in, I can't win the jackpot.
Change premium bonds to lottery if you play that.

 

[RonnyRaygun]

There are risks in every single thing that anyone does. I cycle to work and many people tell me that cycling is far too dangerous and they would never risk their life by riding a bike on the roads.
Yet the rate is one death for every twenty million miles cycled. Even as someone who cycles in excess of five thousand miles per year, that should give me four thousand years of death free cycling, which, to be honest, is a risk I am willing to take.
I know people who will find fear and risk in every single aspect of life. I sometimes wonder why they get up, but then there are risks associated with staying in bed...
The risks that I take outside of work are on my own terms and no-one can force me to take them or not take them.
Things are slightly different in a working environment. Sometimes employees may feel coerced into taking risks that they don't feel comfortable taking, as they may feel their job will be at risk if they speak up and suggest that they should be provided with additional PPE, or they argue that they shouldn't be expected to go up on that roof without a harness, or operate that machine with the guard removed.
These are the people who the HSE is there for. The problem is that it usually takes an "accident" before the HSE are even aware that workers' safety is being compromised.
Of course, just because an employee is happy to take a risk, does this mean that they should do so at work? Should they suffer a serious injury through taking a risk they shouldn't have taken, would they inform the HSE that it was entirely their own fault, or would they be straight on the phone to a no win no fee lawyer?
At the end of the day, it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that health and safety laws are complied with; there is a high risk it will eventually bite them on the bum if they don't.
From a personal point of view, as an employee I've broken H&S rules, both with and without the knowledge of employers, I've also refused on occasions to take risks that employers have asked me to take. I don't think I've ever put myself in a situation that I wasn't comfortable in, but that doesn't mean others wouldn't, and they are the ones who need protecting.
Of course, the real question is whether or not members of the public should take it upon themselves to get involved. There is certainly an argument that the HSE cannot take action if they are unaware that laws are being broken, and the building trade is far more open to the eyes of the general public than factory work for example.
Rightly or wrongly, I would probably just roll my eyes and think that natural selection was once again at play.

 

[kazuya]

what risks?
are you qualified to do a risk assessment then? sorry i didnt know that when you posted

Technically yes, but I didn't bring it up because it's not actually relevant.

i just thought you were the normal joe public i meet every day that say, "i dont know how you can even step on a ladder it scares me to death"
like i said before just because "you" think something looks dangerous doesn't mean it is.

Bzzzt - deviation. I didn't say otherwise - you are answering a statement that I don't recall I've made !
You made a statement, which in the context could only reasonably be interpreted to mean something along the lines of "no-one was hurt, therefore there was no risk". That is a load of *******s and risk doesn't work like that - which is why I pointed out that just because there was no incident this time doesn't mean there was no risk.

If it did work that way, then I'd cash in my premium bonds - I've not won the jackpot this month, or last month, or the month before, or ... By your logic, no matter how long I leave them in, I can't win the jackpot.
Change premium bonds to lottery if you play that.

no the point about that is, there was no incident this time, so if you had poked your nose in and rang H&S and they came out, held the job up for half a day,
either told them they were ok doing what they were doing or they should be doing it another way, on that particular job the outcome would have been the same,
nobody got hurt regardless.

and the fact that you are qualified to make those judgments makes all the difference, and if you cant see why that is then theres something wrong with you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

no the point about that is, there was no incident this time,

So should there be no regulations of any sort, anywhere, aimed at preventing or mitigating the effects of "incidents"? We should just have a total free-for-all, and only be concerned after an incident has harmed someone?

so if you had poked your nose in

It's not "poking his nose in"! That is a pejorative description which betokens a position opposed to the morality and duty of care which should be possessed and felt by decent members of society.

and rang H&S and they came out, held the job up for half a day,
either told them they were ok doing what they were doing or they should be doing it another way, on that particular job the outcome would have been the same,
nobody got hurt regardless.

Why don't you try driving around without a seatbelt on, speaking on a hand-held mobile phone, and when you get nicked, tell the police not to go poking there noses in because you weren't doing anything wrong because no incident occurred. See how far that gets you.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Rightly or wrongly, I would probably just roll my eyes and think that natural selection was once again at play.

Wrongly.