do I have muppet written on my forehead?

[troll]

There`s not that many construction sites nowadays that indulge in the card-carrying thing. For that matter, there`s not that many construction sites that can even be bothered to put together a decent HS induction. In our little world, the situation, in my opinion is even worse. I think we really need to approach HS issues at a fundamental and professional level before we even think about how we "fit into" the framework of construction site operations. Why is it that unit Directors down to unit supervisors are not required to hold any formal/nationally recognised HS qualifications? Why are risk assessments not a part of a quality control system before implimentation? How do we expect an intelligent assessment of risk when it is written by someone who ca`nt even spell risk? Why are ther no guidelines from the IFA? Where does liability and responsibility fall when overlapping but autonomous developer/archaeologist assessments of risk fail miserably? I vote for a complete re-think on HS policy in commercial archaeology as a priority.I also think that with their resources, the IFA should be the body to formalise this. I also believe that if Prospect are intent upon touting "courses" then they should put their money where their mouth is and train some managerial archaeologists to a national level. At ground level, all field archaeologists have the right to expect a consistant and qualified/professional system of Risk assessment/management on their behalf. They also have the right to see a risk assessment and a method statement before they set foot on a site. The days of muppet management are ticking away when it comes to Health and Safety...this is one issue that will be dealt with by the profession internally/formally and, soon. For those of us in the field, if your at risk due to the incompetence or sheer arrogance of either your employer or the developer, get off site until the issue`s resolved. Don`t hesitate because your job may be at risk if you do, it`s even more difficult to get work in archaeology if your in a wheelchair. The law (for once) is on our side on this issue. Don`t f*ck about-walk out.

[cooky]

I actually agree with troll - my ealrier comments appear to have offended some but this was not the intention - i merely was pointing out that the cause of safety on site is not helped by the few that go on and on and on about H&S issues that arent -

[troll]

Cooky-sometimes to get a point across, we have to put someones nose out of joint. Tiz a historical issue, us nice polite English types are just too nice to shout when it`s needed. So long as we offer our points here without character assassination-offend away....trust me-I have, and, when needed, will continue to do so.

[Post-Med Potterer]

This has been an interesting if not very objective thread. Some of us as managers are actually very serious about Health and Safety matters. I make all my field officers do their own risk assessments and implement any necessary mitigation. All new sites have a h&s induction at the beginning. I realise that this may be the exception.

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence here, and many of the stories are familiar to us all from the bad old days. The 'man with two arseholes' was known to me when I worked for the now defunct SYAFRU in the early 1990s.

Some statistics would be helpful if those concerned enough to post are able to provide them. I am thinking along the lines of building industry statistics injuries/deaths per person/time spent working.

HSE reports that the construction industry employs 'just under 2 million people'. In 2002-3 there were

71 fatal injuries (ie. 0.0036% of workers)

4780 major injuries (more than three times the average for industrial sectors, but still only 0.239% of workers)

all this information from
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_r...4531es.pdf

Are there similar figures for the archaeology profession? I suspect not, in fact. Perhaps there is scope to compile this through this forum? An argument to managers is much better made through objective facts than impassioned ranting (however well-justified [:I]).

Can I suggest some sort of poll to provide data for 2004-5? Perhaps something along the lines of

1. In the last twelve months, how many of the following have you PERSONALLY witnessed on sites you have worked on or been associated with?
a. Fatal injuries
b. Major injuries (3 days+)
c. Minor injuries (less than three days)

2. How many archaeological projects have you been on (or associated with) in the last twelve months
a. 1-5
b. 5-15
c. 15+

Not very scientific but at least its a start. Obviously this ignores long-term problems such as backs, knees etc caused by a combination of poor management and ignorance.

[EarlySlav]

Good point as we are supposed to be evidence collectors and would put what is a serious debate on firmer ground.

[troll]

Whilst I accept that there are those out there who pursue HS requirements with vigour, my focus in offering this thread was simply to open debate. That debate, with offerings from a variety of subscribers has illustrated a fairly dire HS environment across a range of theatres. Simply, in terms of experience of working around the country, field staff describe working environments and indeed working ethos to be at complete odds with even the tightest and prettiest risk assessment.We are simply saying that it`s not working on the ground. It also has to be said that I`m not too overwhelmed by statistics. 0.0036% of the construction site workforce lost their lives in the period 2002-3 (post-med potterer). However you manipulate this data and choose to present it, at least one individual in the construction industry dies every month. Not everyone listed as being a construction worker, actually sees a site that often.The two million people "employed in the construction industry" are not all site workers. The statistics then would be even less favourable.When one reduces the assessment of a Human life by simply reducing a workforce to statistics, yes, 0.0036% sounds as though not even one whole person died at all! The reality is-seventy one people lost their lives and 4,780 people suffered major injuries. You also offer the idea of a BAJR poll.Narrow banded frequencies like fatal/major/minor will simply allow for yet more statistics waving. What about near-misses? What about sites with NO risk assessments? What about risk assessments that bear no reality to the work environment? I would argue for rather more than a simplistic poll that we all know will undoubtedly provide the statistics required to embellish the illusion that all is well in HS in archaeology. When you look at the statistics (for what their worth) offered by PMP, even the construction industry with its vast logistical ability-cannot prevent 71 deaths and nearly 5,000 major injuries yearly. The ugly truth is that in terms of HS and staff facilities/welfare, the construction industry makes us look like relics of a long,forgotten work-ethic. And they still lose people.Lets discuss HS in archaeology seriously-not reduce an important issue to bite-sized propoganda......

[the invisible man]

Let's try not to panic about all this. Yes of course H&S must be taken seriously, but I think PMP was just trying to put it all into proportion. 71 deaths is 71 too many but construction one of (if not the) biggest employers in the UK and 71 is a big improvement on the position 20 odd years ago. While many archaeological "sites" are on actual working construciton sites many are not, and a construction site is many times more dangerous than an archaeological site. For a start there are often many large yellow machines, some moving around a lot, including backwards, and lots of things for you to fall off or to fall on you, and of course the use of hand held machinery and large power tools, welding kit and so on.

H&S is something to be aware of, not obsessed with. That awareness is the key to safety. Risk assessments are essential but are not the be-all and end-all: they are only any use if they are taken seriously by the writer. Many are inevitably the previous site's with the title changed.

Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.

[BAJR Host]

New Poll now up...

check it and vote.
http://www.bajr.org/BAJRPolls/default.asp

maybe not perfect but a first step to finding out what is going on.

Another day another WSI?

[troll]

not sure about this at all.......minor/major/fatal is a bit basic innit? Oh-panic and obsession ay? wait till Iv`e had me fag!! Seriously though chaps, please don`t tell me that you see this as a way of guaging HS on sites.....[?]

[1man1desk]

Statistics are valuable. The point is that, if you have statistics, you can track whether things are getting better, getting worse or stagnating. However, I don't think that a BAJR poll (however well intentioned) can produce valid statistics.

On a related point, bear in mind that many archaeological accidents will occur on construction sites, and will therefore be included in the construction site statistics.

Under the RIDDOR rules, any significant incidents (including near misses) have to be reported by law. Assuming that archaeological organisations are complying, there should be official data available. However, not all may be readily identifiable as relating to archaeology.

From my own observation, H&S practice in archaeology was horrific in the 1970s-early 1990s, has gradually improved since the mid-90s, but is still well behind the construction industry. One of the key drivers behind the improvement has been the increasingly close connections between archaeology and construction contractors, who are shocked by archaeologists' standards of practice and often build better H&S practice into contract requirements. I have seen contractors threaten to sack units that had over 100 people on site unless they met the standard specified in the contract.


1man1desk