+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: do I have muppet written on my forehead? (/showthread.php?tid=1959)
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - the invisible man - 23rd April 2006
So how would having "crop spraying in the next field" on an RA have made any differnce?
Surely the fault is with the site manager for allowing work to continue in hazardous conditions. Whether they were foreseen or not is not directly relevent here.
Unless of course it was only water and they were just watering the crops................
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - eggbasket - 24th April 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
{snip} I have to reiterate the folly of issuing such equipment only to fail miserably in the formulation of a professionally drafted risk assessment.
As the field team operate in their full ppe regalia on a damp and windy day, the local farming landowner saw fit to spray his crops with insecticide/pesticides.
{snip}I drew this issue to the attention of the HS bod only to be reminded that I must keep my hard hat on at all times.......
I am not sure that crop spraying could be predicted, although it might have been possible to identify it in a risk assessment so there are some grounds for including it. Do you know what the farmer was spraying onto his field? Did you ask him or did you just presume that it was some kind of insecticide or pesticide?
As far as working in the spray from the sprayer goes, you have as much responsibility for your own health and safety as your employer does. If you felt there was a health and safety risk then you should have made the issue known to your supervisor and, if no action was taken by them to determine whether the spray could be harmful or not and to prevent you from being harmed by it, you should have decided what was the best course of action for your own safety and implemented it. If this meant leaving site because you felt the conditions were unsafe you should have done so. If you failed to do so then you are as negligent as your employer with regard to H&S.
Your H&S bod sounds a bit daft if that really was their response to your concerns about the crop spraying. On the other hand, you state that the conditions were both windy and damp. While the wind might have spread the spray around, the damp conditions could have prevented that. The H&S bod may have taken this into account when formulating a response to you.
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - troll - 25th April 2006
Thanks for the responses everyone.Eggy-absolutely!Surely the whole point of a risk assesment is to assess.There is plenty of dialogue when landowners/farmers are assessed prior to allocation of compensation when big linear things run through their land.The minutae of crop regimes and timings would surely enter the frames of reference.Of course I accept that:
1. the farmer may have been watering (bit unlikely-rained a lot)
2.My colleagues and I should have left the site and,
3. I should have addressed the farmer direct.
My main bone of contention is the response of the HS bod.I also asked if we could have a copy of the risk assessment and that`s still forthcoming.....allegedly
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - eggbasket - 26th April 2006
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
My main bone of contention is the response of the HS bod.I also asked if we could have a copy of the risk assessment and that`s still forthcoming.....allegedly
Well, since the response of the H&S bod sounds stupid as presented, you are certainly within your rights to be aggrieved.
The risk assessment should be held on site, and you should all have seen it at the start of the work. If it is not there, then you need to complain strongly to whoever is in charge of such things. It does not take much effort to actually generate the thing, and it should be done on site anyway so there is no reason why anyone should not hold it on site. I wonder if the HSE would take a dim view of not giving people an appropriate H&S briefing and not holding the RA on site?
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"A stitch in time saves precious bodily fluids."
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - 1man1desk - 26th April 2006
Certainly we always require that the RA is held on site and that everyone working there sees it and signs it.
We have always had strong H&S requirements in our specs, require H&S info from tenderers and place H&S above archaeology in our order of priorities. However, partly as a result of information/debates on BAJR, we are beefing up our requirements (mainly to make some things that formerly were implicit much more explicit and detailed).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - the invisible man - 26th April 2006
I'd have thought that a Risk Assessment was only part of what should be held on site. It would form part of a Health and Safety policy (or Plan etc) that all new personnel on a site read as part of their induction. That's what would would happen on a construciton site, which in a legal sense you may be.
I would not think it would be appropriate to approach the farmer direct, except in extreme circumstances - like his combine rumbling through the site.. "Oi stop" might be in order. Otherwise the site manager should deal with all outside parties, unless he elects to delegate.
I see no reasonn why crop spraying should be overlooked in a RA on a rural site, it's not really that surprising. I included it myself on the first RA I ever did in an archaeological context. Action might include thinking about the time of year (OK I'm a townie so I'd seek advice), ask the farmer in advance, and stop if/when he starts.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - troll - 2nd May 2006
As a sneaky link to the thread on welfare...
hot water facilities for hand washing is a must on all sites.seeing a detailed soil analysis on site-let alone a non-tick the box RA is a rare event.we have no idea what we are covered in.all day, every day.at least let us wash our hands!urban or rural-no exceptions please...
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - Gizmo - 2nd May 2006
Forgett soil contamination, at certain times of the month a girl needs a toilet and to be able to wash her hands, preferably in warm water.:face-stir:
A few years back i was setting up a large surveying job when i realised my then manager had not provided a loo. After several attempts at getting him to book one i finally asked if he expected me to change my tampons (sorry boys) in amongst the nettles. he simply replied "there arnt any nettles" and walked off.
we never dod get that loo, and i can tell you there were nettles and brambles a plenty!!!!!!!
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - Emjem - 4th May 2006
YAY!! Well said gizmo, ive had managers blush before when they have finally realised that under all the PPE and thermals they have actually employed someone of the female gender!![:I]
do I have muppet written on my forehead? - troll - 7th May 2006
Can`t argue with that ladies.And would`nt dare.Simple issue here- one would`nt force guests in one`s own house to walk miles for a wee.Neither would one throw guests out in torrential rain or snow.Our industry seems to think that it can do as it pleases with those desperate enough to need to work for it. I have a few surprises in store for said companies who literally-"take the p*ss"... keep me informed.Think you may like this.....
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)