Blacklists a good thing for the economy?

StevieJ

dervish wrote: »

that was a joke :rolleyes:

No that was a joke

torontoboy45

1echidna wrote: »

Ah yes, and when a proper safety assessment has been done and the H & S Exec are not concerned is some militant still the true arbiter as to what is safe and not safe? Of course they don't call themselves militants these days but there are still antediluvian working practices in some industries if yours is not one of them all well and good.

I was just about to eat dinner, but then I spotted this.
allow me to give a response.
your faith in HSE is misplaced. as a TU h and s rep in the 90's it became increasingly clear that the executive were being heavily leaned on by major's gov. to 'go easy' on business, to 'relax' the burdens of the health and safety at work act 1974 by interpreting the 'reasonably practible' clause contained therein in a more 'business sensitive' way. equally, EU relevant directives.

I had the mother of jobs to get the hse to look at working practices that were obviously dangerous. 3 times I managed to get them to issue improvement notices and only once a prohibition notice.

down the yrs I supplied much evidence in support of comp. claims (fractures, miscarriage, loss of sight, etc) to tribunals. in only 2 cases did the tribunal rule in favour of the company, out of dozens. there's no doubt that that the co. was negligent (gen. speaking) but so were many of the job-protecting !!!!!! over at hse.
I bet I'm on some type of blacklist. like you, I couldn't care, but someone from the generation behind me might feel less inclined to say 'sorry, but this looks a bit dangerous', when it's blindingly f***ingly obvious to anyone with a brain that 'it' is a downright deathtrap.
you really need to read up on some UK social history to understand why we need h and s and how it landed on the statute books.

anyway, dinner.