6th April 2009, 12:58 PM
Sometimes it depends on previous experience.
If I had previously been in charge of a site and had some trouble in this department, maybe I would request all this documentation to cover my back, just because I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of explaining myself afterwards again?
Some time ago I was running a dig abroad with undergraduates. It was in a country with a conservative, traditional background. The students had quite a lot of freedom on the project, and one decided this meant they could start having an affair with a local. This created massive problems for the reputation and indeed the future success of the project, because the locals took exception. A major catastrophe was avoided at the time, but in the future I had to spell out that relationships with locals are a no-no, and anyone going into that direction would be on the next flight home. Over reaction? Maybe, but unfortunately necessary and born out of experience. It isn't any of my business what people do with their private lives and relationships, but it becomes a serious problem for me when locals start chasing us with pitch-forks! (over-dramatization).
Usually criminal record checks when working with young people or children are meant to be for those who are in a position of responsibility or in charge of a group of people, because they can make an easy impression and exert some degree of control.
I can imagine that on a large scale dig involving both children and young people the older volunteers are automatically seen as being in a position of authority?
At the same time, you can you request criminal record checks for some, but not for others? On what basis do you decide? I'd say that if criminal record checks are required, than they should be required for everyone. That's only fair.
I agree that duty of care can be taken too far, but that matters jacks*** when something happens and you haven't covered for all the eventualities: insurance won't pay, you might be liable personally, or indeed it may mean a criminal offense etc. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in now...
I cringe everytime I have to prepare an H&S outline for my projects abroad - from venomous scorpions and snakes, to terrorism and regional wars. I know full well that 99% of what i write is bulls***, but it has to be done.
You're right its about the wording of being 'healthy'. I request that people tell us about their health problems beforehand, so that we know what we can ask them to do, what medications they need to take, that they have enough of that medication with them, that we can find tasks for them to do that are appropriate for their capacities and health. But, it needs to be explained in those terms. "We ask you that, because we want to make sure you won't be harmed..." etc.
Unfortunately, some people think they can do stuff that in fact over stretches them. Some people won't tell you they have this or that problem, because they want to be fully involved, don't want what they think is special treatment, want to dig etc. But when they keel over its your problem to deal with.
The case of a paid digger is different, but similar things have occurred. There are instances when people are being asked the same questions. Some people have had to go through quite probing security clearance to work on sensitive sites (military installations for example). This is well beyond a criminal records check!
The issue of having a medical problem and being fit for work is a different matter. On the one hand the employer needs to be sure that you're competent and capable of carrying out your assigned duties. On the other hand, we need to create opportunities that provide equality to those who can't engage in fieldwork in the same way due to health reasons. But again, I would hope this is not primarily an issue of disrimination, but an issue of responsible behaviour by the employer.
If I had previously been in charge of a site and had some trouble in this department, maybe I would request all this documentation to cover my back, just because I wouldn't want to go through the hassle of explaining myself afterwards again?
Some time ago I was running a dig abroad with undergraduates. It was in a country with a conservative, traditional background. The students had quite a lot of freedom on the project, and one decided this meant they could start having an affair with a local. This created massive problems for the reputation and indeed the future success of the project, because the locals took exception. A major catastrophe was avoided at the time, but in the future I had to spell out that relationships with locals are a no-no, and anyone going into that direction would be on the next flight home. Over reaction? Maybe, but unfortunately necessary and born out of experience. It isn't any of my business what people do with their private lives and relationships, but it becomes a serious problem for me when locals start chasing us with pitch-forks! (over-dramatization).
Usually criminal record checks when working with young people or children are meant to be for those who are in a position of responsibility or in charge of a group of people, because they can make an easy impression and exert some degree of control.
I can imagine that on a large scale dig involving both children and young people the older volunteers are automatically seen as being in a position of authority?
At the same time, you can you request criminal record checks for some, but not for others? On what basis do you decide? I'd say that if criminal record checks are required, than they should be required for everyone. That's only fair.
I agree that duty of care can be taken too far, but that matters jacks*** when something happens and you haven't covered for all the eventualities: insurance won't pay, you might be liable personally, or indeed it may mean a criminal offense etc. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in now...
I cringe everytime I have to prepare an H&S outline for my projects abroad - from venomous scorpions and snakes, to terrorism and regional wars. I know full well that 99% of what i write is bulls***, but it has to be done.
You're right its about the wording of being 'healthy'. I request that people tell us about their health problems beforehand, so that we know what we can ask them to do, what medications they need to take, that they have enough of that medication with them, that we can find tasks for them to do that are appropriate for their capacities and health. But, it needs to be explained in those terms. "We ask you that, because we want to make sure you won't be harmed..." etc.
Unfortunately, some people think they can do stuff that in fact over stretches them. Some people won't tell you they have this or that problem, because they want to be fully involved, don't want what they think is special treatment, want to dig etc. But when they keel over its your problem to deal with.
The case of a paid digger is different, but similar things have occurred. There are instances when people are being asked the same questions. Some people have had to go through quite probing security clearance to work on sensitive sites (military installations for example). This is well beyond a criminal records check!
The issue of having a medical problem and being fit for work is a different matter. On the one hand the employer needs to be sure that you're competent and capable of carrying out your assigned duties. On the other hand, we need to create opportunities that provide equality to those who can't engage in fieldwork in the same way due to health reasons. But again, I would hope this is not primarily an issue of disrimination, but an issue of responsible behaviour by the employer.