It's going to sound harsh, but I don't necessarily think they do. The H&S would still be saving lives WITHOUT the daft rules. The rules are daft afterall. Moreover, it is the daft rules that allow scope for profiteering. They take away personal responsibility and they reduce people's own ability to assess risk because they expect someone to have done it for them. If someone is injured because they didn't have the good sense to assess risk, so be it.
H&S should protect people from malpractice and negligence, NOT themselves. H&S law (and law in general) has become far too specific, giving judges little scope to judge the merits of each individual case.
Some more examples:
It is ridiculous to have to train someone in manual handling. If something is too heavy for someone, they should say so. You shouldn't have to teach them that picking up something too heavy may result in dropping it and/or injury.
You shouldn't have to teach people that it's a bad idea to over-stretch when working from ladders, nor how to climb a ladder. However, it is a good idea to require ladders to be footed.
Dave
|
|