do I have muppet written on my forehead?

[destroyer]

1man1desk said (lucky git by the way to have a desk all to himself)

quote:One way to add an extra control to prevent this kind of dangerous practice is to build good H&S into specs/contracts.

err call me naive, but dont we all do this already?? I generally have a method statement/risk assessment etc included with the tender document to meet any contract spec, which i thought was pretty much mandatory otherwise the insurance is probably buggered and the client won't allow us on site. In any case H&S site inductions, either our own or the clients, are mandatory.

Then i only have my own personal stupidity to deal with, such as almost mattocking my own leg off....

[1man1desk]

Destroyer,

You obviously work for one of the more responible units, and have been lucky in the clients involved.

Where there is no consultant, not all work has a proper spec at all - often it is no more than a very sketchy curator's brief, which is not designed as a tender document at all, but is used as one.

The unit working on any job that I am the consultant for will certainly do a proper risk assessment - but plenty of posts in this thread complain about the lack of them, or their unavailability.

Site inductions will usually happen when the site is controlled by a non-archaeological contractor - but very often not when the archaeological unit is the only contractor on site.

These precise failures are one of the dominant themes of this discussion thread, and one of the key things that I in my consultant role try to fight against.

1man1desk

[Pedant]

There is a limit to what risk assessments and inductions achieve - it is all very well, but I am sick of telling people till I'm blue in the face that they must wear PPE and still I'm the only person on site with a hard hat on. I have no sympathy for people who read the risk assessment, sign the induction form and forget the lot the minute they step outside the hut. And don't even get me started on headphones.

I reject your reality and substitute my own

[Sith]

quote:Originally posted by Pedant

And don't even get me started on headphones.

..Or mobile phones? As I was leaving field archaeology, more and more people were getting mobiles as they got cheaper, Many of them texting away while reclining in the middle of the site. Not necessarily a health hazard but they do distract the user from what they should be doing (and are getting paid for). They were also having an effect on the old team esprit de corps, as they all spent their tea breaks nattering with their other halves etc ("bye", "go on, hang up", "no, you first"...repeat ad nauseum), rather than interacting with their coleagues.

Sorry about that..back to the original point. It can be hard to persuade people to wear PPE, especially if they are in the middle of a field, in a trench 0.4m deep with no plant for miles (and particularlly in hot weather). However, in some cases, I have been told that we were not covered unless we were in standard PPE. This can be more troublesome when it's the client's insurer; I worked on a site where the client threatened to fire the unit if the site staff insisted in abandoning thier hats/vis-vests in hot weather. It was a quarry, but the nearest machine was about 500m away and the holes were only topsoil deep.

[troll]

Hi Guys. After reading a risk assessment and attending an induction, it was my practise to insist that staff sign the documents not only to say that they had read and understood it but, that they agree to abide by the mitigative measures in place. Those that did`nt, met the jobcentre very quickly. As it was my name on the insurance docs, ultimate responsibility was mine. No PPE, no job. Headphones/phones and pubescent behaviour, no job.

[destroyer]

Someone mentioned headphones on site.... now yes normally i'd say this was a VERY BAD thing in terms of H&S.

However, Thursday sees the start of a cricket match of minor importance and the vans parked too far away from the site. So if my headphone wearing/radio listening colleagues see death by JCB, but manage to shout out the current score with their dying breath, then i may see it as an acceptable loss.

[muddyandcold]

Abuse of diggers/archaeological standards/scant regard of H&S... This theme seems to keep on arising on various fourms....

One company has lost it's IFA Registration.. Another (in wales) seems to have just gained it (according to their web site).

If these companies are sooo bad (can't comment, not having worked for them) why are still allowed a presence on BAJR (jobs vacant and list of contractors).

Take away this service and really hurt them.... ??

Or is this not allowed...

[troll]

Nicely put Muddy. I fear that a response to this will have to come from a grown up like Dr Wardle or Mr Hosty. There has been a bit of a silly situation arising on the IFA RAO front in that, it has been said that "for legal reasons" the IFA can have their hands tied and cannot actually act in this way against units that transgress. I may be getting my wires crossed-Doctor Pete? Mr Hosty? I would like to see curators taking a greater stand against poor HS in units working in their catchment areas...after all, liability can have very, very, long arms. I agree-there is/are/have been adverts on BAJR from some units who really should`nt be allowed to clean toilets.......

[drpeterwardle]

The short answer to this is that a 1/3 of archaeologists have witnessed a major accident in the last 12 months including fatalities. This indicates to me there is a major H&S issue industry wide that needs investigating. What is needed is that everybody takes note of the BAJR survey and reviews their practices immediately. The IFA, SCAUM & BAJR should use their resources to carry out a more rigorous study. Diggers tell your unit manager about the survey.

If a practice is industry wide why scapegoat an individual, which is difficult in any event, the resources will be better used bringing about industry wide change.

I am not convinced it is a consultant job to enforce H&S standards, should we check diggers (sorry archaeologists) have washed their hands before tea break or make that a contractual obligation?

What we can do, and to an extent I already do this but I will be doing it more thoroughly from now on, is to ensure that the ?planning supervisor? is made aware of the fact that there may be an industry wide problem and that they scrutinise archaeological practices in detail. (The planning supervisor is the person on a construction site responcible for ensuring H&S is followed)

Peter Wardle

[troll]

Rather curators Dr Wardle-not consultants. When curators write specs, HS could quite easily be included. After all, if field work is carried out in their areas of responsibility, does a curator not have a duty of care to ensure that appropriate HS mitigation is put in place? HS could be a consideration when Units apply for listing as "available contractors" in a given catchment area. It`s not enough for units to provide flash jackets and hard hats and then assume that they have adequately discharged their HS obligations. One of my most detested practises....after ticking boxes on over simplistic risk assessments relating to slips/trips and falls etc, field archaeologists work every day in ground that has either, a long history as an industrial site or- a rural agricultural setting where no-one (with a duty of care) has bothered to have chemical testing carried out to identify risk in terms of ground contamination. Heavy metals (not Ozzy Osborne) pesticides, hydrocarbons etc pose a real risk to those slopping around in them every day...this of course has a bearing upon those working in urban/industrial contexts on a daily basis but-equally, rural sites where pesticides including DDT/Paraquat type residues linger. Those of you out there with responsibility for project HS-who among you regularly commission chemical analyses of ground contamination PRIOR to field work?[?] Our recent poll that has suggested that some have witnessed fatalities is either a slip of the pen or a deliberate vote to wake us all up to the potential or, some may say, inevitability of just such an eventuality (God forbid) if things are allowed to continue the way they have. Consistant exposure to chemical contamination will take lives over time-providing for a skewed assessment relating to potential fatalities in the short term...