Hi-viz H&S gone mad(der)?

[simon.r]

But that's my point about the broader factors in play when setting H&S policy.

If you allow people to decide for themselves when the risk justifies wearing a hard hat (or any other PPE - in my industry a big issue was safety harnesses and attachment while working at height), sooner or later they will decide not to wear it when they needed it, and some manager will be knocking on a door to tell a wife she's now a widow. A simple zero tolerance "no hat no boots no job" approach with no choice for the individual takes that risk away, and if you take that approach, you will inevitably encompass activities which, taken individually, do not warrant the hard hat or whatever.

It's not the only approach. The alternative is to go down the opposite route of trying to get people to take ownership of their own safety and make their own choices. Sadly, that's a harder route to make successful.

I think some companies now have a H and S culture that is advanced enough to allow some drift away from the simple zero tolerance approach and towards the concept of people being allowed to make their own minds up and taking ownership of their own (and their colleagues') safety.

Having said that, I would still argue for some hard and fast rules (your example of safety harnesses when working at height being a case in point).

How a company and its people move down the route towards the 'ownership' principle is, as you say, a difficult question.

 

[srw]

Are you arguing for the sake of it

You really need to ask?

 

[Profpointy]

You really need to ask?

Good point, this being the internet and all..

... struggling to make a comparison to Hitler, which I believe etiquette expects at this point

 

[marknotgeorge]

Well indeed, so do turbans provide decent crash protection or not? That's then only thing of interest to me. After all, they're not allowed to carry their ceremonial knives in public, there's no exemption for Sikhs there (they carry plastic bladed replicas) yet how many murders were committed with ceremonial Sikh daggers? The applications of safety related laws and exemptions on religious grounds is inconsistent. Something either helps ensure safety, or it does not, and should be legislated for accordingly. Failing to legislate or to make exemptions because 'only a few people do it' is just that - a failure.

I think part of the difference is that a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger has the potential to harm others. A Sikh not wearing a crash helmet only has the potential to harm himself.

 

[EnPassant]

I think part of the difference is that a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger has the potential to harm others. A Sikh not wearing a crash helmet only has the potential to harm himself.

And the same is true for non Sikh's.

 

[Milkfloat]

Is a turban an effective alternative to a motorcycle helmet?

The 'best' of both worlds, I give you The Turbanator

 

[marknotgeorge]

And the same is true for non Sikh's.

You're quite right. I was contrasting daggers and helmets, rather than Sikhs and non-Sikhs.

 

[swansonj]

And the same is true for non Sikh's.

Yebbut it's about proportionality. As a civilised society we allow religious convictions to exempt people from provisions that apply to other people, but only within limits. We allow the CofE to discriminate against gay people but not to stone them. We allow Sikhs to be exempt from motorcycle helmets but not from laws about knives. There is scope for debate exactly where the dividing line lies but the principle seems a good one to me.

 

[Milkfloat]

I was under the impression that a Sikh can carry a Kirpan at all times as it is a religious article.

 

[EnPassant]

You're quite right. I was contrasting daggers and helmets, rather than Sikhs and non-Sikhs.

Sure, sorry, I have a bee in my bonnet about one law for all today.

Yebbut it's about proportionality. As a civilised society we allow religious convictions to exempt people from provisions that apply to other people, but only within limits. We allow the CofE to discriminate against gay people but not to stone them. We allow Sikhs to be exempt from motorcycle helmets but not from laws about knives. There is scope for debate exactly where the dividing line lies but the principle seems a good one to me.

And I think the principle is a bad one, that's all. Everyone should be subject to the law of the land and if there are to be exemptions, they should be exceptional and justifiable.
If we are going to bring in other religious exemptions such as the CofE you quote, I disagree with that as well to be honest. If I went to Saudi Arabia, I would not drink, it's their law and their country. If I couldn't abide by that I wouldn't go.
I disagree with exemptions in law on religious grounds in a largely secular country. If it were for physical handicap or some other so far unspecified reason that might be different and would fall under 'exceptional'.

 

[swansonj]

Sure, sorry, I have a bee in my bonnet about one law for all today.

And I think the principle is a bad one, that's all. Everyone should be subject to the law of the land and if there are to be exemptions, they should be exceptional and justifiable.
If we are going to bring in other religious exemptions such as the CofE you quote, I disagree with that as well to be honest. If I went to Saudi Arabia, I would not drink, it's their law and their country. If I couldn't abide by that I wouldn't go.
I disagree with exemptions in law on religious grounds in a largely secular country. If it were for physical handicap or some other so far unspecified reason that might be different and would fall under 'exceptional'.

As it happens, I think the CofE's various exemptions from discrimination legislation are disgraceful ... from the church's point of view and on theological grounds. But that doesn't stop me thinking that respecting people's religious convictions where this can be accommodated is one of the things a civilised society does.

 

[Supersuperleeds]

Our insurers insist that if you go into areas were pallet trucks or fork lifts are then you must have safety shoes and hi viz on. To ensure that this is met our company policy is if you are working in the warehouse you must have both.

 

[Venod]

. But that doesn't stop me thinking that respecting people's religious convictions where this can be accommodated is one of the things a civilised society does.

But doesn't this make a mockery of H & S if its deemed a hard hat is needed for safety, its needed for everyone, if you can't comply with the rules you don't go on the site.

 

[EnPassant]

As it happens, I think the CofE's various exemptions from discrimination legislation are disgraceful ... from the church's point of view and on theological grounds. But that doesn't stop me thinking that respecting people's religious convictions where this can be accommodated is one of the things a civilised society does.

I agree the exemptions are disgraceful. I have no problem with respecting other peoples religious convictions either.
I do however have a problem where they expect the law of the land to be modified to accommodate those convictions, and an even bigger one, where it actually is. I also accept this may not be, and indeed clearly is not, everyone's view.

 

[Lonestar]

I'm just glad they aren't wearing Lycra.