Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
do I have muppet written on my forehead?
#41
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

The regulations about reporting injuries have not changed!

These regulations have in place since the good old days and should be known to everyone. If they are not been followed in archaeology then there is a very serious problem. The purpose of these regulations is the identification of risk.

If the SCAUM manual has been revised where is it available? It is something everybody in archaeology should have a copy of not just the unit managers.

Peter

10 years - good old days? Wink Without having too much of a go, when you broached the subject you seemed "to recall" that some incidents were reportable but you didn't refer to RIDDOR Wink

Re the availability of the SCAUM manual - join the campaign and shout Big Grin
#42
Quote:quote:Originally posted by cooky
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!

So the way to get around proper H&S procedures then is to brand anyone who makes a H&S complaint as a 'work-shy/useless/troublemaker types who DO use H+S complaints as a means of avoiding work' and to teach them a lesson that they won't forrget in a hurry make sure their contracts aren't renewed. My god who do you work for!! It sounds like some enterprise half-imagined in a Dicken's novel.

If any 'macho' attitude has been expressed on this subject, Mr Cook's takes the biscuit. Surely you need to apologise to your employer for that little outburst as I can't really believe that they (or any of your field staff) could share, let alone endorse, such views.

#43
Ok hands up I did get the two postings confused and apologise to those involved and thank you mercenary for clarifying some of your issues. But my basic point of view is that to make unsubstantiated and inacurate statements anonymously on a message board is a waste of time, especially when the procedures are in place to deal with the issues on the ground, either in-house or through statutory bodies/trade unions/BAJR etc.
#44
<sarcasm>Yes, Gerwyn, its all just "moans in the pub", isn't it. All the procedures are working fine.</sarcasm>
#45

Quote:quote:Originally posted by cooky
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!

[/quote]

Cooky has stuck his neck out a bit by saying what he did, but Mr Wooldridge's reaction is a bit one-sided. There are such work-shy creatures looking for an excuse as described by Cooky, although they are very much a minority in archaeology, and supervisors/managers may not take their complaints seriously. If their contract is not renewed, it is unlikely to be because of the H&S complaint (unless shown to be malicious). My experience of such people on site is that they can be a significant H&S risk in themselves, because they can't be bothered to take the precautions/use the kit that has been provided. When I myself was running field projects, the only significant actual indident that occurred on any of my sites was caused by such a person (bad cut on the hand, caused by de-turfing in a way that was unsafe and against instructions, but seemed easier).

Similarly, there are hard-working, conscientious site workers (in my experience, the majority) whose complaints are likely to be genuine. Any unit (or any other employer) wants to keep such people, especially if they are experienced, and if they get rid of them for making justified H&S complaints all they are doing is undermining their own commercial viability. Good, experienced diggers are a valuable resource, not easily replaced (as someone else suggested) from the crop of new graduates, who have no experience and who are themselves an unknown quantity.

When a contract is not renewed, it is very hard for anyone other than the manager to say why, and people may have very inaccurate theories. However, if anyone can come up with a real case where H&S complaints were the cause, or a case where someone was actually sacked, I would like to hear about it.


1man1desk
#46
Greetings Gerwyn. At no stage did I ever suggest that an ordnance officer hit anything with a shovel. Neither did I say that I was down a ten metre hole(do know what they look like). And yes, I did bring the issue to the attention of a grown-up. As far as being a part of the solution goes, my disgust at the state of HS in archaeology prompted me to join the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management some years ago. I have also worked alongside an internationally recognised company specialising in munitions clearance-and I do mean, closely alongside. Please read my earlier threads for clarity. My contributions on BAJR are designed to open frank and meaningful dialogue with as many flavours of archaeologist as possible in the hope that things will change. You will no doubt be pleased to notice too, that I discuss issues as general concepts and do not release sensitive details pertaining to unit names and/or sites. For the past seven years, I have been bringing HS issues to the attention of the grown-ups and, worked closely with Health and Safety Officers when I ran my own shows. Galaxsea for example is one tough cookie and did`nt let my risk assessments slip un-molested-bless him. At this point, I have to switch tack slightly and welcome Mr Hinton to BAJR.Thank you for your contribution! Gerwyn sir- see earlier threads-tiz all there.To refer to Mr Hinton`s clear statements-employers are not above the law. Secondly, I for one have hammered the IFA over the years for what I saw as selective hearing. Mr Hinton is clearly saying that if an individual or organisation that has signed up to the IFA guidelines is not fulfilling his/her/their duty of care, then we are invited to pursue the issue first, through line-managers then, inform the IFA if no solution is apparent or indeed, adequate. I welcome Mr Hintons comments, am genuinely tempted to rejoin the IFA after hearing from him and, on a final note, I am not anon. For those of you who don`t have access to my details on BAJR- My name`s Si Cleggett and am open for dialogue at any time on, 07944 179499 (only text whilst in Cyprus please-saps credit like a bent mattock) or, sicleggett@fsmail.net. Yep- for those of you who know me, I do bitch. A lot. After all, change only ever comes about through open dialogue. And if anything needs change, it`s the current state of commercial archaeology. Of paramount importance of course, is health and safety. On this issue, I will bitch and pursue with vigour when archaeologists are put at risk when those with a duty of care simply can`t be bothered, err on the side of economics over safety or, are simply incompetent and make a mockery of the IFA accreditation system. No venom here guys, simple tenacity when it`s so clearly needed. The IFA talked about training during a joint conference with Prospect...how about funding for cosh/nebosh/HSE qualifications? I can think of no more valid funding applications than this.......Gerwyn, take care sire, will do some(safe) sunbathing for you!.Big Grin
#47
Can we agree on formal applications/discussions/negotiations on the need to place copies of the SCAUM HS manual in site huts as a condition please? Also, can we please push collectively for copies of risk assessments and method statements for site huts too?Big Grin
#48
Re Troll's last bit....Agreed. If available, copy SCAUM H&S document and put in site huts. Call to action for all responsible project managers/directors/officers etc etc. Get relevant documentation out -each reputable co. should have H&S policy, insurance details, Risk Assessments, etc etc clearly available and circulated.

#49
Does anyone know where we stand on healkth and safety with reguards to the construction site safety card which is madatory for all people working on building sites except archaeologists, dispite the fact the majority of our work is undertaken there! A group of us tried to obtain these cards and safety courses but when we applied we were told theres nothing we fit into and recomended we applied as surveyors! However we couldnt do this as we dont have the qualifications needed to do this.[?]

Any ideas as I think this may be a way of improving standards and possibly forcing the building industry to state the level they class archaeologists as workinhg at.

Maybe at least itll stop the builders taking the mick quite as much when they point out "that guy over there sweeping up earns more than you do with a degree"!
#50
My CSCS card says Environmental Manager on it. You could also try for Conservation Consultant, which I know another archaeologist has. You will need to take the supervisor's or manager's test, which is really dead easy but also includes a whole bunch of stuff that archaeologists do not really need to know. But the situation is still a bit daft when you have to think around it like that.

Cheers,
Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  muppet of the year award Troll 12 2,102 6th December 2005, 09:11 PM
Last Post: sniper

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)