Posted by jimmy b on 08/01/2023 08:42:37:
…
This is one of the reasons that imports have mostly finished our once great manufacturing ability. Nothing is as cheap as human life……
Jim
…
The belief that H&S finished 'our once great manufacturing ability' is misplaced for two reasons:
First, British industry is doing as well as it ever did, financially. What it does though, has changed! In the past, indusry was highly visible: slag heaps, shipyards, steel works, factory chimneys, railways, and huge numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs (low pay). As time marched on, industry moved to more profitable work like electrical, electronics, and aero-space. Now it's far less obvious because it doesn't make the goods mentioned in John Masefield's poem 'Cargos':
Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rails, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays.
Secondly, old-style manufacturing found itself competing with a rapidly growing service sector, where banking, insurance, design, consultancy, software, project management etc all offered clean better-paid jobs, with career prospects, bonuses, good pensions and social hours.
Many bettered themselves by leaving manufacturing. During the 50s,60s, and 70s, staff shortages forced pay up in old industries using low-productivity methods. Higher pay created an illusion of well-being in the workforce, but it was illusory. Firms struggled with competitors abroad using cheap labour and with anyone modernised in the developed world. It became uneconomic in the UK to make low-tech low-profit goods, and industry shifted to high-profit goods, which are mostly high-tech. Painful!
In comparison, the negative effect of H&S is tiny. But H&S has been highly visible, and was often blamed for shutting down failing companies. H&S never stopped a profitable industry!
H&S exists because industry has long had a poor safety record. It didn't matter to employers when injured staff were simply sent home and taken off the payroll. However the injustice offended liberal opinion, and government were moved to legislate. An early example was forcing employers to insure boilers, so that neighbours and employees would be compensated for injury and property damage. Immediately reduced the number of boiler accidents, because no-one would insure an ancient much patched boiler maintained by a cheap ninny.
With the advent of the NHS, government became directly concerned about H&S because the taxpayer was found to be picking up massive bills. And when accidents were investigated, causes were rarely found to be accidental! Instead: corner cutting; bad planning; thoughtless habits; poor training; inadequate supervision; inappropriate equipment; failure to mitigate risks and other avoidable human factors. Governments legislated repeatedly so the taxpayer wasn't subsidising industry by paying for their incompetence.
There's always problem with legislation though! Even well-written and thought through, as opposed to a politically motivated knee-jerk, it's a blunt instrument. It also empowers folk who want to do everything 'by the book', no matter how costly or pointless. Over confidence in 'the book', is almost as bad in my opinion as over-confidence is oneself! A*se-covering is a common motive; avoiding responsibility by hiding behind rules and regulations, even if it damages the company.
Done properly, risk management avoids both problems. Anything is possible provided a risk assessment is done showing the risks and constraints have been identified, and what needs to be done to mitigate them has been identified. However, the system upsets chaps who despise paperwork, i.e. most of us! Nonetheless, the purpose is to get people to think through what they're doing and to identify what's done if the process goes wrong. It protects employees who follow the resulting guidance, and it protects the employer against employees who ignore it.
Lifting is a common example – it's easy to do your back in! The risk is mitigated by limiting the weight an employee is allowed to move on his own and by lift technique training. Then if Mr Brawn hurts his back showing-off the employer is not liable for their nice but dim employees stupidity. He ignored the rules, and the employer is not responsible for the consequences.
Like all legislation and enforcement H&S is imperfect, but, although it finished thousands of wobbly businesses, it's not the main reason British industry changed tack. Successful businesses follow the money.
We all see H&S as a bad thing when a man with a clipboard tells us we can't take a sensible shortcut; it happens! But remember it also stops the next door neighbour who decides to get rich quick by manufacturing tons of Hydrogen Fluoride in his back-garden. He's not free to set up a home-made chemical plant and give our grandchildren sweeties to operate it.
H&S is all about balance, and balance is difficult. The temptation is to crash on regardless, hoping the gamble will always pay off. My advice is to support rather than blame H&S because it does a much better job than the alternatives!
Dave
Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 08/01/2023 11:01:03