+- 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: This CSCS thing (/showthread.php?tid=2846)
This CSCS thing - GnomeKing - 25th July 2010
it is a uniform - it is mark of conformity, and a subtle means of oppressing the workforce by masking individuality.........
This CSCS thing - JhawkArch - 30th July 2010
I'm new to this CSCS business as I am coming from America. There is some interesting discussion going on that I've found incredibly enlightening. I am going to take the test when I finally start my course (MA at Southampton! :-D) because I've seen it required or recommended for a number of jobs, I do have a question, though: Is there a focus simply on PPE and safe handling of dangerous equipment, or do they deal with issues such as how many litres of water one must drink per hour during physically-demanding work or other physiological safety concerns like having an epi-pen for people deathly allergic to bees, for example?
This CSCS thing - Dinosaur - 30th July 2010
What, something sensible or relevent? - don't be silly, this is British Health and Safety we're talking about here! :face-approve:
This CSCS thing - the invisible man - 2nd August 2010
Sensible? How can there possibly be a defined and fixed amount of water one must drink per hour? Surely that must depend on the individual (physique, fitness, metabolism, preferences etc) as well as what sort of physical work, temperature and humidity....................the correct amount must be "enough"? Taken to absurd extremes, we could have "fluid intake supervisors" going round with stopwatch and clipboard monitoring everyone's intake, and of course producing forms to demonstrate that the guidance has been fully compied with..... And surely you only need an epi-pen if there is someone on the team with an deathly allergy?
This CSCS thing - Jack - 2nd August 2010
Dinosaur Wrote:What, something sensible or relevent? - don't be silly, this is British Health and Safety we're talking about here! :face-approve:
There's nothing wrong with the British health and safety rules, per se. Its usually the idiots that enforce them, combined with the lack of understanding of the procedures or responsibilities or legal ramifications.
Recent examples I have come across....
'Hand protection should be worn as appropriate.' got changed to 'gloves must be worn at all times.' (no exception)
'Eye protection must be worn at all times (no exceptions).' when I asked the safety (project) manager why, I was told to protect against dust (even though they were glasses to protect against low impact collisions and not dust). When I said, oh, so we don't need to wear them when its raining then as there is no dust. I was told no, you must wear them at all times no exception. I then asked to see the risk assessment for wearing of the eye protection.........there wasn't one.
'........with how little understanding the world is governed.'
This CSCS thing - seanthesheep - 3rd August 2010
When i done the CSCS i was only in 15 minutes. There was 2 questions on Fire Extinguishers The rest was as you say safe handeling and PPE but the questions may vary. I knew a couple of people who failed first time (Heaven knows how) Nothing about water or Bees though Heheh!
This CSCS thing - BAJR - 3rd August 2010
So are we coming to a conclusion that an archaeology specific Card would be sensible... after all, it is becoming clear that we (in teh commercial world at least) are a unique profession within the development and construction industry and should be treated as such ratehr than being lumped in. In some many things we are ... lumped in... perhaps a good step would to be unique
This CSCS thing - trainedchimp - 3rd August 2010
there's only so much point in doing an archaeology-specific card if you then have to work under the frankly silly 'safety' regimes promoted by principal contractors...
Surely what's actually needed is for an (archaeology) industry-wide approach to the big contractors via the HSE to point out that actually, the dangers of archaeology CAN be the same as those of any other construction site, but that by and large, the conditions are actually different and require task and site-specific risk assessment with the emphasis on specific.
But it's not all bad, I can remember the early 90's (or even 2001 for one particularly *traditional* unit), and I for one appreciate having first aid kits on site, bogs that aren't buckets that need emptying into the spoil heap at tea time, mess and washing facilities on site, shoring in 3m deep trenches and not having to threaten the PO with physical violence to get necessary PPE provided. Even if I do have to wear the bloomin' stuff while standing in a field separated from the road by 400 metres of woodland, 3 miles from the nearest machine.
This CSCS thing - JhawkArch - 3rd August 2010
I didn't mean for my questions to be taken as a criticism of the CSCS, as I firstly admitted that coming from overseas I have had no exposure to the scheme whatsoever. I simply meant to ask if the questions had to do with those aspects of health and safety.
Yes, the invisible man, environmental factors affect how much water one should drink, but I'm sure out there there are median guides for moderate activity. Also, yes, it is the one with the allergy's responsibility to be concerned for their own risk of being stung, but there are folks out there who have never been stung who may have an allergy. If it is a supervisor's responsibility to have a first aid kit, that should be involved. From the previous posts, it just sounded like the test was all about goggles and gloves. I apologise for the miscommunication.
This CSCS thing - trainedchimp - 3rd August 2010
yup. the test is all about gloves and googles. And fire extinguishers. It's pretty meaningless really but is a handy bit of plastic to put in your pocket.