The cost of doing safety on the cheap !

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

I don't think you can delegate out of your H & S responsibilities as the owner or occupier of the site.

Unfortunately not, but you can get greater peace of mind by appointing a contractor who is actively focussed on keeping their guys and others safe and who has safety at the forefront of their offering.... rather than risking safety as a way of winning more business.... supported perhaps inadvertently by the clients that appoint him because he is cheaper....and the risk cycle continues?

 

[TheTallGuy]

I don't think you can delegate out of your H & S responsibilities as the owner or occupier of the site.

It's not delegating out of your responsibilities - it is performing due diligence to fulfil your responsibilities in line with Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015... https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg411.htm

 

[DrWazzock]

Unfortunately not, but you can get greater peace of mind by appointing a contractor who is actively focussed on keeping their guys and others safe and who has safety at the forefront of their offering.... rather than risking safety as a way of winning more business.... supported perhaps inadvertently by the clients that appoint him because he is cheaper....and the risk cycle continues?

You have no way of knowing how safe the contractor is until he’s on site and it’s too late in my experience. Just because contractors talk the talk about safety and charge a lot doesn’t mean they will actually do what they say they will do on site.
We employed a reputable firm who subbed the roofing to two self employed lads. The safety nets were never used. We questioned this and were told to eff off and that if we held the job up we’d be charged extra. We were lectured about modern roofing sheets being reinforced with ribbon so they don’t fail catastrophically. How are we to know? We aren’t experts. In an ideal world we’d have told them to leave site, engaged a solicitor and bankrupted ourselves fighting a legal case, but in the real world you have said your piece and if they won’t listen and they crack on you hope for the best and trust in the good lord. You are well and truly over a barrel by then.

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

You have no way of knowing how safe the contractor is until he’s on site and it’s too late in my experience. Just because contractors talk the talk about safety and charge a lot doesn’t mean they will actually do what they say they will do on site.
We employed a reputable firm who subbed the roofing to two self employed lads. The safety nets were never used. We questioned this and were told to eff off and that if we held the job up we’d be charged extra. We were lectured about modern roofing sheets being reinforced with ribbon so they don’t fail catastrophically. How are we to know? We aren’t experts. In an ideal world we’d have told them to leave site, engaged a solicitor and bankrupted ourselves fighting a legal case, but in the real world you have said your piece and if they won’t listen and they crack on you hope for the best and trust in the good lord. You are well and truly over a barrel by then.

Sorry you had this experience but from what you describe I'd suggest you "didn't" employ a reputable firm after all?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Sorry you had this experience but from what you describe I'd suggest you "didn't" employ a reputable firm after all?

That is why clients like the council insist on using firms registered with compliance organisations like Construction Line, therefore fulfilling their duty of care without too much work. I noticed that the companies that I know of that have had accidents, have tended to have a lax safety culture (a company culture of "have to get the work done, haven't got time for all that .....)

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

That is why clients like the council insist on using firms registered with compliance organisations like Construction Line, therefore fulfilling their duty of care without too much work. I noticed that the companies that I know of that have had accidents, have tended to have a lax safety culture (a company culture of "have to get the work done, haven't got time for all that .....)

We have construction line gold which is a requirement for almost every council or Govt body. Some may consider it BS but it focusses behaviour and ultimately strengthens the culture in a business. We have never been asked for it by farmers but the culture is there so everyone benefits!

"Cheapest gets it" is guaranteed to propagate the opposite culture!

 

[DrWazzock]

The council can just stick the extra on the council tax. We can’t really do that being price takers not price setters.
I fully agree with safety, I’d be an idiot not to, but there has to be some acceptance that we as farmers will look for competitive quotes. I wouldn’t knowingly sign a contract if I knew safety of the workers was going to compromised but sometimes it’s difficult for us amateurs to know what’s what. I built my last shed myself as it was a whole lot easier than having to deal with somebody else.
Anyway thanks for letting us know about construction line gold etc. I’d never heard of that. Perhaps if it was better publicised there would be greater uptake.
In any case as agriculture becomes more corporate I would imagine it will squeeze out the corner cutters within a decade anyway. How the increased costs will be passed on into the food supply chain I really don’t know, especially in the face of foreign imports where tge use of a decent ladder is probably considered a luxury:

 

[DrWazzock]

It’s a common theme in farming really. We should be doing this and that and complying with all these fine ideals. All very well, but it seems to cost disproportionately more than we’ll ever recover in return if any.
Really some effort needs to made into how we can make safety affordable instead of seeing it as an excuse to write a blank cheque, which from the point of view of somebody trying to make ends meet it so often seems to be.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

It’s a common theme in farming really. We should be doing this and that and complying with all these fine ideals. All very well, but it seems to cost disproportionately more than we’ll ever recover in return if any.
Really some effort needs to made into how we can make safety affordable instead of seeing it as an excuse to write a blank cheque, which from the point of view of somebody trying to make ends meet it so often seems to be.

I think it is a common theme for politicians, they love to force others to spend their money. I am all for Health & Safety, but equally dead against unnecessary legislation (I am thinking of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones over the whole of Wales ~ when nearly all of Wales has not had a farming pollution incident, also everyone in Wales having to have fuel in a bunded fuel station ~ is that the same in England?)

 

[MD @Minshall Buildings]

I think it is a common theme for politicians, they love to force others to spend their money. I am all for Health & Safety, but equally dead against unnecessary legislation (I am thinking of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones over the whole of Wales ~ when nearly all of Wales has not had a farming pollution incident, also everyone in Wales having to have fuel in a bunded fuel station ~ is that the same in England?)

Sorry but my OP is not about politicians or unnecessary legislation , its about protecting the safety of people you have on your site and protecting yourselves from those that would take risks in return for a lower price.

If farmers are happy with "cheapest gets it" as a basis to place business then that's fine......but they should also be aware of their responsibilities if something goes wrong.

Employing any shed builder who neither priced or intended to use safety nets or handrails when working at height is simply encouraging this unsafe practice to continue.

Just ask what is included for the price all suppliers are offering and then decide after comparison with others. That way you will get a safe job at the "best price"....simple really?

 

[Lazy Sod]

A farmer I know retired, sold all of his land except for about 20 acres, which a grazier uses, and had all his modern steel framed buildings made into storage units which eventually were all let out. It's a large set up. At the start of the conversion work, the site had haras fencing, where appropriate, and a lockable gate. The farmer handed over the keys to the builders, and even had to get their permission to enter the site.

I often wondered why he did that, perhaps it was to absolve himself any failings of the builder.

 

[Johnnyboxer]

A farmer I know retired, sold all of his land except for about 20 acres, which a grazier uses, and had all his modern steel framed buildings made into storage units which eventually were all let out. It's a large set up.

At the start of the conversion work, the site had haras fencing, where appropriate, and a lockable gate.

The farmer handed over the keys to the builders, and even had to get their permission to enter the site.

I often wondered why he did that, perhaps it was to absolve himself any failings of the builder.

Because it was a building site and not part of the farm, hence all the fencing and locked off, around the buildings

Health and Safety at work/hard hats/hi viz - the full Monty

 

[TheTallGuy]

A farmer I know retired, sold all of his land except for about 20 acres, which a grazier uses, and had all his modern steel framed buildings made into storage units which eventually were all let out. It's a large set up. At the start of the conversion work, the site had haras fencing, where appropriate, and a lockable gate. The farmer handed over the keys to the builders, and even had to get their permission to enter the site.

I often wondered why he did that, perhaps it was to absolve himself any failings of the builder.

Standard practice with pretty much any well run building sites - nobody should be on site without permission/knowledge of site management.

 

[Lazy Sod]

So would it let him off the hook if an accident occurred?

 

[betweenthelines]

It's not delegating out of your responsibilities - it is performing due diligence to fulfil your responsibilities in line with Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015... https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg411.htm

But the owner/legal occupier of the site, is still ultimately responsible for H & S and will end up in Court if things go wrong.

If that wasn't the case, you'd see H & S managers in Court-not the Business owners.

 

[theboytheboy]

Sorry but my OP is not about politicians or unnecessary legislation , its about protecting the safety of people you have on your site and protecting yourselves from those that would take risks in return for a lower price.

If farmers are happy with "cheapest gets it" as a basis to place business then that's fine......but they should also be aware of their responsibilities if something goes wrong.

Employing any shed builder who neither priced or intended to use safety nets or handrails when working at height is simply encouraging this unsafe practice to continue.

Just ask what is included for the price all suppliers are offering and then decide after comparison with others. That way you will get a safe job at the "best price"....simple really?

Can you help us out?

Can you post the questions we need to be asking?

 

[jd6820]

Having worked in other industries where you can't do anything without completing Risk assessments before starting any work and having produced method statements as to how you are going to conduct said work, agriculture is a long way behind other industries in many ways as regards H&S. Farms are a place of work and fall under the H&S at work act, Its just a pity far more involved in the industry don't take H&S far more seriously.

Whilst I agree with this statement entirely, you may also be aware most other sectors make suitable margins out of the end product to allow them to pay H&S consultants to devise risk assessments and then the company usually has an employee supervise the team working and check they are completing the work in a safe manner according to the RAMS they have been given. This is in complete contrast to most farms where margins are tight, generally only one or two people on the farm, who are generally on with the day to day running of the farm, hence employing the contractors. Now I'm not saying this is acceptable but it is difficult to see a solution to this without farmers increasing the price of the end product to retail rather than wholesale? So I can understand why some of the contributors feel frustrated when employing external contractors and then still having to watch over them. I'd be guilty myself of thinking that employing contractors was risk free but my annual meeting with our insurers promptly reminds me of the liability that lies with us if anyone gets injured on our property. Hence the box ticking exercises commence, I can see inductions on to farms appearing in the not too distant future.

 

[TheTallGuy]

But the owner/legal occupier of the site, is still ultimately responsible for H & S and will end up in Court if things go wrong.

If that wasn't the case, you'd see H & S managers in Court-not the Business owners.

The difference is that a H&S manager is an employee, thus their actions are the responsibility of the business directors/owner, whereas an construction contractor is not necessarily so. Building work comes under the scope of CDM 2015 which requires the "client" to perform certain duties in appointing a "designer" and "contractor" & engaging with the process, if those duties are fulfilled correctly then the H&S duties fall primarily on the designer & contractor. Cases where the client ends up in court generally involve the client giving the contractor the nod to go ahead & not actually fulfilling the basic requirements of a client under CDM 2015, simply awarding the contract and saying "get on with it" isn't enough.

 

[betweenthelines]

The difference is that a H&S manager is an employee, thus their actions are the responsibility of the business directors/owner, whereas an construction contractor is not necessarily so. Building work comes under the scope of CDM 2015 which requires the "client" to perform certain duties in appointing a "designer" and "contractor" & engaging with the process, if those duties are fulfilled correctly then the H&S duties fall primarily on the designer & contractor. Cases where the client ends up in court generally involve the client giving the contractor the nod to go ahead & not actually fulfilling the basic requirements of a client under CDM 2015, simply awarding the contract and saying "get on with it" isn't enough.

As you say, primarily, but not solely.

 

[roscoe erf]