And lo on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:53:43 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:37:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>> Yeah.  It is a "society becoming lazy" thing in my mind.
>>
>> But what's the cause, is it bottom-up or top-down (or neither or both).
>> Personally I think it's top-down - you can't perform this 2 minute job
>> without filling in H&S forms 11b, 121c, and 2d and then submiting them
>> for processing; if you just do the damn thing you will be reprimanded if
>> anyone finds out because if anything happens who's held liable
>> dum-dum-duh!
>
> I think it's a little of both - I think a big part of the problem is that
> nobody is responsible for their own actions any more.  If I, say, stick a
> screwdriver in my eye, it's not my fault - it's the fault of the
> manufacturer of the tool for not including a warning that says "WARNING:
> Screwdrivers have pointy bits; do not stick them in your eye, or you are
> likely to be injured!".

I think they just cover that with "Do not use this item for any purpose  
other than for which it is designed to be used" ;-)

> So we have to have all these forms and whatnot
> that are used to disclaim responsibility.

But who or what is driving that, oh wait it's partially this \/ guy isn't  
it...

> I was reading a story the other day (have to see if it's online
> somewhere) about a guy who fell off a ladder in spite of having taken
> "ladder training" that explained that there were ways in which it was
> inappropriate to use the ladder.  He was standing on the very top
> (against the training) and was only found to be 25% at fault in the
> accident.  The result is that he'll collect something like £37,500 on his
> claim of £50,000.
>
> Because he fell off a *ladder* that *he* was using improperly, and he'd
> been trained was improper use (and he even admitted he knew he was using
> it wrong).

Read about a similar (if not this) case, my dad was "Well what was he  
doing up a ladder that didn't have non-slip points and was unsupported at  
the base by a colleague?" yeah he'd just been on a H&S course. I think in  
this case the guy argued that he'd pointed out the faults, but was told to  
do the job anyway. Heh if he'd refused and got fired I bet he'd get less  
compensation then for being a loyal idiot.

>>> Yep, that is the biggest problem.  There have been stories about kids
>>> being expelled from school for having prescription medications because
>>> the ZT policy of the school is "no drugs".
>>
>> Except from the teachers point of view in this case what's to stop a
>> student putting drugs in a medication container, how could they tell the
>> difference? Easier (there's that word again) just to ban the lot.
>
> Except that the student actually *needs* the medication in order to
> *live*.  I'm not talking something like being able to tell aspirin from
> cocaine

Yeah but I bet ZT has fallen on that too.

> - but things like insulin for diabetic students.  Apparently
> they're supposed to get insulin injections without using a syringe
> because the teachers can't tell the difference between a diabetic student
> taking necessary medication and a heroin junkie shooting up in the
> hallway.

Easy, if the person shooting up rolls their eyes back into their head and  
gains a big grin on their faces I don't think it's insulin.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message