Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
My point is as stated in my mail. We are all grown up and we need to take responsibility for our actions. My mail replied to Gnome King's suggestion that the ' fate of cannabis users' (their words not mine!!) should be of wider concern to the archaeological community as a whole. I have no thoughts on the merits of any policy, I have no personal vendetta.... I am concerned that some respondents to this thread appear to suggest the use of narcotics is widespread amongst archaeologists. I don't think it is.....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
I know feelings may rise up here... so just want to ask for a bit of calm and imagine standing in front of each other - lets not get lost in argument rather than debate.
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
9th March 2010, 04:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 9th March 2010, 05:02 PM by GnomeKing.)
To clarify:
a)i said cannabis use was (like in other parts of society) not uncommom in 'archaeological communities'(not workplaces) -specifically, i did not say that narcotics were "widespread" in archaeology.
b)I contend that, whatever the current contents of the Misuse of Drugs Act, cannabis is no more harmful to society/individuals than is alcohol, possibly somewhat less so. Science supports this view. The metabolic/physcological/societal effects of many otehr drugs are significnatly more profound - therfore, cannabis should rightly be considered at all times seperatley to the bulk of substances in the Act.
c)The current tests pick up regular cannabis use very easily in comparision to other compounds, where grey areas exist - cannabis users are therfore very likley to picked out, even though they pose minimal, or no risk.
d)still feel that the "fate" of co-workers who use cannabis in thier own time (ie at no risk to thier own work or others around them) should perhapes be of concern, beacuse the impact of these tests may result in good people losing thier jobs.
c)drug testing does not protect aginst the most common causes of accidents - overwork/pressure + tiredness (whether drug/alcohol related or not) - there are few controlls for 'tiredness', and perhapes this should also be an issue to talk about.
There are various deeper and wide ranging issues to be talk about
- but i ask again, Do we want to see good people lose jobs for no other reason than they use intoxicants (safely) in thier own private lives?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
17th March 2010, 02:28 PM
troll Wrote:I have to agree that the employer has not been given the legal remit to police citizens behaviour and frankly-the private consumption of materials outside of work hours is none of their business-morally or legally. That said, I would agree in principal to the testing of those in control of vehicles or machinery as a part of their working day. I have to say that the majority of accidents and near-misses I have witnessed were undoubtedly the result of:
1. The behaviour of morons
2. The behaviour of incompetents
3. Companies and senior managers attempting to trim budgets
4. Pathetic risk-assessments
5. Lip-service paid to HSE Law.
6. A culture of cover-up and the assassination of "whistle-blowers".
As a footnote and to echo a post I made recently- I`m really heartened to see a major improvement in the HS culture on construction projects and in archaeology. I`m lucky enough to work for an employer who takes the safety of its employees seriously and, for a client that operates an open channel of communication in a strictly monitored workplace. Good stuff all round. On the subject of drug and alcohol testing at work, I expect that employers act within the law and hope that they in turn should expect an equally lawful response from employees when they cross the lines.
good points would like to trump them all with one other
To me everyone has it backwards.. there is the notion that HS culture on major building projects has improved which is true yet by the same token the working conditions for archaeologist have become more dangerous irrespective of how many new hoops are placed in all contractors way to improve safety.....
how can this be true?... the simple answer is that contractors are increasingly forced to work around each other in budget cutting project timetables
... this single change in practice places archaeologist in more danger irrespective of what steps are taken to mitigate the risk.. WhyTF do we have to wear ear protectors because someone is using a massive abrasive wheel 5m from our trench... the safe option is not to create work schedules that expose non related workers to risks unnecessarily
tight sites and clashing contractors leads to absurdities in litigation avoidance measures for dangers WE WERE NEVER PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED TOO
even if we concede that sites back in the day were lax on HS I think on reflection it was in the main (with a few notable exceptions) safer because you didn't have to negotiate a load of guys demolishing the building above your head...
what are the stats for archaeology... I have seen more accidents in the last 3 years than 20 years ago am i wrong and just viewing this through rose tinted glasses?
I suspect stats across the entire construction industry have improved dramatically while the conditions for archaeologists have deteriorated.
prediction... 20 years from now tight contract scheduling will be seen as dangerous
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
17th March 2010, 04:23 PM
I'd love to back that up with many many examples of buildings falling around you while digging - think you only have to watch part of a TT special on Gresham Street to see that in a nutshell - but I guess it should be a separate thread. I totally agree with that analysis, and of course that kind of working practice puts people under a lot of stress, whether be it tempers flaring over issues of space and priority of work, or keeping an eye permanently open for bricks falling too close for comfort - and thus distracting concentration which in turn leads to more dangerous work conditions and more stress. What a vicious circle. My advice? Fill in the accident/near miss log, complain to the nearest foreman/supervisor, contact the office, take lots of photos, and walk off if nothing gets speedily sorted. No point in endangering your health and safety, you're perfectly entitled to down tools in that sort of situation. Abrasive wheels? Oh yes...You name it, any danger will be present.
Having said that not everyone on this forum will know about these types of site, or have had limited experience of them. In the majority of cases sites are free of these dangers, or run perfectly - I can think of a few which were, a pleasant surprise it was too!
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
17th March 2010, 11:43 PM
mididoctors and brazier - both good posts...possibley start of new thread?... perhapes not - maybe simply a drift towards substantive issues...ie what things are REALLY causeing increased risk on sites, and are there elements of OHS practice that poorly reflect them? Have "absurdities" occured as a result of a move to shift blame/litigation away from cost-cutting/minimal-standards-are-fine contracted mangement, and on to workforce majority?........IMHO, yes almost certainly, perhapes more a result of 'culture' and 'accepted practice' rather than Bad Apple conspiring... (but perhapes not...)
Problem is >>>continual chains of sub-contractors creates a culture and industry of blame atribution and avaidance - no single orgaisation is responsible....profit is to be made by some by adresing (and complexifying) the 'commonly' accpeted principles of saftey...
Yes, we definatley want OHS - but is it as principled as assumed, and is it working for us?
Critiscism of OHS is hard - there is a culture that it is 'for our own good', and that to critiscise it is an affront to 'commonly' accepted modes of 'good'/'safe' behaviour...in this thread, for example, attempts to disscus the real situation and work-related risks of cannabis compared to other intoxicants (including alcohol) have been quite viciously attacked, most notabley with assertions that only a person who is stonned and wants to take drugs at work would suggest such a thing....
There are many intersecting issues - and i am glad that i am not alone in in thinking about them, or in making reasoned critiscism of the world we live in.
We can talk about cause; "Property and single interest divides the people of a land and the whole world into parties and is the cause of all wars and bloodshed and contention everywhere", We can join together in the small and everyday ways that matter and make a difference
We can protect the Common Interest from the damage of Irresponsible Capital.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2009
18th March 2010, 11:58 AM
I don't agree with that political rationale, sorry, I hold to the idea that in practice all theories of social behaviour and methods of dealing with them that either reward or punish offenders (in the case of "anti" measures and "pro" directives with respect to health and safety, etc) will inevitably have failings, the reason being they're all trying to predict and clean up messy old reality. It's up to the individual to work out what to do, you can't do much to "cure" a hardened drug addict in a short space of time, nor can you expect those with a great deal of first-hand experience of danger to "chill out" over issues of keeping a workplace safe and healthy in a short space of time either. What you can do is agree that no amount of talk will change actual events, nor rules to forsee situations will be 100% fool-proof, the best thing to do is simply get on with it with an open mind, a firm sense of responsibility for your own actions and consideration for others', and pay attention to rules and measures that make sense, and be diplomatic about those which don't (until you can't take the wind-up any longer...). If I want to go out for a few drinks that's up to me, but with some element of common sense attached, don't get hammered during the week ....etc etc....and if I want to impress people with my thorough knowledge and implementation of health and safety measures again up to me, but make sure I do see the wood for the trees...etc etc...
"The world can only be grasped by action, not by contemplation". (Jacob Bronowski)
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
18th March 2010, 12:08 PM
Heres a good one i just heard, relating to nonsense arising from the 'industialisation' OHS;
A council premises has had a mezzanine floor fitted - imedeatley fire and OHS inspectors cliam it is unsafe - however designating it as a 'raised storage area' obviates the need for inspection, as this is deemed a 'safe' catagory....possibley we are all doomed....
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
18th March 2010, 02:58 PM
GnomeKing Wrote:Problem is >>>continual chains of sub-contractors creates a culture and industry of blame atribution and avaidance - no single orgaisation is responsible....profit is to be made by some by adresing (and complexifying) the 'commonly' accpeted principles of saftey...
complexifying!:face-stir: not sure about that..... start a new thread and cross quote.. I'll pitch in
The number one issue for safety and good working practice(especially in urban environments) for a site superviser is gaining control of the site from other contractors
THE END
It solves so many problems in one fell swoop.. remember HS includes mental stress.... every effort should be made to bear down on the culture of tight sites and multiple contractors overlapping... our work is not in any way supportive of any other and could and should be isolated in the project design phase...
the archaeological monitors; GLASS county archs etc... should insist on it as the work force need to be free of stress to adequately remove the archaeological record to a standard that mitigates the archaeology for the developer...
single occupancy OR NO BUILDING
NO EXCEPTIONS
this culture of single occupancy should be a default standard know the length and breath of the land...
EG.. if the work force have to wear ear protectors to mitigate hazard then they have introduced a new hazard in the trench as communications have now become harder between staff.
the introduction of HS procedures for dangers not created by the task in hand yet themselves introduce a new risk are unacceptable
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
18th March 2010, 05:08 PM
mididoctors Wrote:single occupancy OR NO BUILDING
NO EXCEPTIONS
What about watching briefs?
?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb
|
