20th July 2005, 10:26 AM
I couldnt stay out of this any longer. There are some really interesting points made on both viewpoints here. I agree that H+S is often neglected by archaeologists both at Project Management level and operatives in the field - Arrogance is the biggest single problem with Field Archaeology today. Field Operatives acting macho and boasting about near misses and moaning that they will get sacked if they complain etc etc
I have no experience of people being sacked for complaining and I have 15 years experience in field arcaheology - though I will accept that there must be unscrupulous units that may do this as Troll suggests.
I do have plenty of examples of people 'not having their contract renewed' - these are often the work shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work - this happens across the board in archaeology its the oldest trick in the book - and masks many occasions where H+S is breached. I have lost count of the amount of times 'someone' has raised a H+S issue whcih is at best pedantic at worst plainly incorrect. - the boy that cired wolf springs to mind - if you get my drift!
The problem is having people suitable qualified to make H+S judgements which comes to my main point. Most (not all and dont take offence if you arent in this group) Project Designers be it managers or curators - yes curators you put conditions on things and therefore you are a designer - have no professional qualification in civil engineering / H+S considerations -These people are products of the glory days of the 70's and 80's when it was jobs for the boys and no hard hats, sandle wearing on site and drinking cider on the spoil heaps at lunchtime
These are the people who need to get up to speed with qualifications and - how many of us have been on site when a curator comes out to monitor and says 'can you go a bit deeper' - you are immediately under pressure to do this to get the site signed off - BUT stand your ground if its unsafe dont do it! - If a curator ever says 'it looks ok to me' ask to see what process they 'mentally went through to make that judgement.
If they are prepared to back it up - then fine if they shirk away - do the same yourself. It is the responsibility of all - Field operative, Project manager and the curator to ensure that what is being done is practical and safe -the curators have to ok proposals and WSI from units and consultancies - if they ok it then they have a responsibility too - There are many good curators who have sent back WSI and Secs to me questioning the H+S elements - this I really like - Many would get all stuffy about people putting their noses in where they dont belong. For me it shows that that curator will only recommend sensible approaches and Specs to the client
This sort of joined up thinking has to be the only way forward
Stop moaning and enter into dialogue with all parties
sorry for the long rant
I have no experience of people being sacked for complaining and I have 15 years experience in field arcaheology - though I will accept that there must be unscrupulous units that may do this as Troll suggests.
I do have plenty of examples of people 'not having their contract renewed' - these are often the work shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work - this happens across the board in archaeology its the oldest trick in the book - and masks many occasions where H+S is breached. I have lost count of the amount of times 'someone' has raised a H+S issue whcih is at best pedantic at worst plainly incorrect. - the boy that cired wolf springs to mind - if you get my drift!
The problem is having people suitable qualified to make H+S judgements which comes to my main point. Most (not all and dont take offence if you arent in this group) Project Designers be it managers or curators - yes curators you put conditions on things and therefore you are a designer - have no professional qualification in civil engineering / H+S considerations -These people are products of the glory days of the 70's and 80's when it was jobs for the boys and no hard hats, sandle wearing on site and drinking cider on the spoil heaps at lunchtime
These are the people who need to get up to speed with qualifications and - how many of us have been on site when a curator comes out to monitor and says 'can you go a bit deeper' - you are immediately under pressure to do this to get the site signed off - BUT stand your ground if its unsafe dont do it! - If a curator ever says 'it looks ok to me' ask to see what process they 'mentally went through to make that judgement.
If they are prepared to back it up - then fine if they shirk away - do the same yourself. It is the responsibility of all - Field operative, Project manager and the curator to ensure that what is being done is practical and safe -the curators have to ok proposals and WSI from units and consultancies - if they ok it then they have a responsibility too - There are many good curators who have sent back WSI and Secs to me questioning the H+S elements - this I really like - Many would get all stuffy about people putting their noses in where they dont belong. For me it shows that that curator will only recommend sensible approaches and Specs to the client
This sort of joined up thinking has to be the only way forward
Stop moaning and enter into dialogue with all parties
sorry for the long rant