Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
I think the notion of the legality of CDM regulation apply or not is largely a red hearing. The CPM regulation represent a minimum standard, in effect, in the construction industry and it sensible to follow them even if technically there is not a legal requirement to do so.
I think a degree of common sense has to apply to this particular thread about welfare facilities. I often undertake work on sites where there are no welfare facilities. It is simply not worth while hiring in a portaloo in case I want to to use it in the few hours I am on site doing say a walk over survey. Hand cleaning is easy try either antiseptic wipes or the hand cleaning gels sold in garages for a pound.
Drinking water - try Perrier or Malvern. Hot drinks use a flask or a camping stove and kettle (assumming you can conform to the rules on transporting gas cyclinders).
Over a day or so then I think better arrangement should by definition be in place.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Agree Dr. Pete, all your suggestions and more are routinely utilized by staff to provide a modicum of "welfare" facilities. And for 1 or 2 day projects we do accept that the facilities will probably be minimal.As you say "comon sense".
But, my current project is at 1 and a half weeks and counting, with no improvement in the facilities. (Some tools were stolen over the weekend because we've resorted to hiding them in a hedge.  The toilet's ponging a bit as well.) But it's all part of the fun innit? Nothing unusual about this site at all. I'm not even really complaining. Just trying to educate the ignorant really.
Perrier? Really?
Who monitors who???
The Home Office Licence Clearly States that all exhumations must be conducted with complete privicy. How then was it able for the local paper to splash pics on there front page of work in progress????
With regard to welfare facilities is it right for archaeologists to expect the bare minimum - in the depths of winter???? THERE were no washing conditions on site.... Ladies WERE expected to use the same facility as male colleagues and contractors!!! ARE we not worth more than this???
BAJR, please check out the Law regarding the removal of Human Remains. It is very Black and White!!
I can provide you with the current guidelines (offline) if you are not up to date.
Why do we accept the mininmum? We are specialists, and deserve appropriate coniditions. Unless we take pride in ourselves everyone else will take the pee.
In answer to Dr. Wardles comments, obivously, if you are doing a walk over (1/2 hour) or a watching brief (1-2 hours) then shared facilities are acceptable. The point in question is for longer running projects (lasting 2 months), there should be appropriate welfare facilities!!!
All in all, it doesn't give much hope to those wishing to reform the profession by whistle blowing to the IFA/BAJR,as NOTHING WILL BE DOWN (closed shop!!)
GIVE US RESPECT
Quote:quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host
Nuff said.... I do remember this one now. After talking with everyone involved... including the county archaeoligist.. this situation was not bad - and Home Office licence and conditions of working with human remains was done as per the requirements. I checked.
Welfare facilities were shared with the onsite staff.
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
mercenary said:
"Just trying to educate the ignorant really. Perrier? Really?"
Yes - back in the old days the best way of ensuring that there was a supply of sterile drinking water was indeed to buy bottled water. Back then bottled water was not that easy to buy and there were few brands about - Perrier being one of them.
These days bottled water is commonly available and I would suggest that there is no excuse for not providing sterile drinking water.
As for the exact law on the excavation of human remains - the law is absurd. The home office licence requires them to be excavated not in public view. Are we therefore saying that every archaeology news broadcast and programne that shows the excavation of human remains is in breach of the standard home office licence?
As a norm I would suggest that a gazebo for UKP 40 is a good bet to stop people from surrounding buildings looking at said excavations.
Dr Peter Wardle
(who trys to avoid drinking water and eats brioche not bread when ever possible).
I am so fed up with the whole profession I have undertaken training to become an accountant..[xx(]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Mattockhead, with relation to your complaint,
The pictures splashed on the front of the newspaper were from a high building - so short of enclosing the entire site in a bubble?? The brick vaults also ensured non visibility,
I am very clear on the home ofice licence, in fact I wanted to be so sure I contacted them about this... everything had been done properly. (though perhaps they are in league with the director of the Unit) - I also checked on removal of said burials, and indeed the proper procedure for dealing with lead coffins had been carried out, with full protective clothing and specialist equipment, as well as a specialist firm. Iknow... I checked. So unless everyone is in cahoots, from Govt, to County Archaeologist... then --- it can be difficult to pursue a mater when its your word against everyone elses.
IF you contact me I do something... (as does the IFA) and this took up a lot of my time. Your perception of this was unfortunately flawed....so remember that bringing a complaint against someone is serious, and when checks show that everything has been done properly... there is not much else I or anyone can do. Enjoy accounting. 
Another day another WSI?
Wasn't actually a complaint! Merely commenting on the state of archaeology and conditions.
As i have said before, the gripe wasn't with the way the clearance was being completed but by the conditions the archaeologists were expected to work in! Working out of an old land rover, no washing facilities, limited (shared toilets). These concerns haven't been adequately answered..... Care to comment?
However, in reply, the pictures were taken, not from a 'HIGH' building but looking over a wall from a PUBLIC footpath (clearly you didnot visit the site!). To screen the process would have been simple, would not 3m high hoarding be effective? Alternatively, areas being worked on could be screened by solid fencing or tenting. I believe at cemeteries at King Cross/St. Pancreas and Marylebone school the sites were completely covered by tents!
The brick vaults were dismantled to allow the removal of the coffins thus allowing a clear view of the process.
The home office issues the licence, they do not enforce the conditions. They relie upon the local environmental heatlth officer. As cemetery clearances are not exactly commonplace could it be that the officer for that area placced their own interpretation on the rules and regs?
Similarly, the county mounty is responible for monitoring the quality of archaeology being completed, not ensuring that the conditions of the Home office are being maintained!
Possiblly, in this world/culture of increasing workloads people are struggling with their own responiblities let alone taking on others! Not to mention the ever increasing threat of being sued....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2004
Can I suggest another poll Mein Hosty? Does your unit supply drinking water? Mine doesn't :face-confused:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Mine used to, but some muppet has long since lost all of the caps for the jerry cans!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Welfare facilities will always be an issue because provision is constrained by the factors covered in the term 'reasonably practicable' - which in this debate might be appropriate.
In the case of a site visit, a bottle of cold water may suffice, along with a cup of tea on the way there or back. Provision of a portaloo is not really necessary, as long as there is a vehicle available to transport any personel to the nearest public facility. As Dr Parer says, hand-washing can be via a suitable gel.
For a couple of days evaluation a portaloo may well be required, and can be factored into the costings without being unreasonable. If you need to keep losing staff on extended lavvy trips in the site transport, then productivity falls and you may be depriving those remaining on site of the vehicle that is actually the site office and possibly identified in the RA as transport for emergency purposes. Provision of a decent cabin for a couple of days might well cost more than the actual job, and is therefore not 'reasonably practicable'. Provision of cold drinking water can be bottled water, provision of hot drinks can be via flasks made up in the morning, or through a visit to nearest caff (at employers expense of course). Hand washing facilities can be a bowl, water, soap and paper towels, or through a specialised gel.
For a couple of weeks the provision could be adequate portaloos (gender specific), cabin with fitted facilities such as heating, hot water for hand-washing, boiling water for drinks, potable cold water etc (there are specialised 'start-up' welfare cabins available for hire).
If the legislation and guidance is inadequate, then it is something that should be addressed within a contractor's H & S Policy, and therefore open to view by all employees (existing and prospective). In this way staff can complain if their facilities do not meet the standard identified in the Policy, without being concerned about what the law says or does not say. The project Risk Assessment should contain information regarding the welfare facilities that are to be provided.
Beamo
|
