|
By:
Angoose, I will answer your questions when you clarify what your asking, is question 2 asking whether I believe all employers have a statutory obligation to provide full PPE against cov19?
|
|
By:
They have taken the hippopotamus oath.
|
|
By:
Save life,cure disease and ease pain
|
|
By:
If they are able to
|
|
By:
They will do this even at risk to themselves, which seems to have happened for some with the corona virus
PPE for medical staff must be of highest priority |
|
By:
Also of course if Doctors and Nurses catch the virus, they can no longer treat patients, or they risk spreading
the virus themselves. PPE is of the utmost importance for Medical staff. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
shame your answers are not as precise as your questions...no shame in just saying 'i haven't a clue'
|
|
By:
If so, is like the army refusing to go to war because the other side has better weapons and more soldiers. I'm afraid deal with the rpesent situation as best as possible then take the government - present and future - to task for inadequate safety gear. If not address vote with their feet and walk away - the NHS is bigger than any government.
But, I think the NHS needs to be streamlined and cannot function at its optimum in his present manner. No amount of money can provide every service it's presently trying to offer. |
|
By:
So obviously the answer to question 2 is no I don't believe, in the present situation, an employer has a statutory obligation to provide full PPE for their workforce, why? because almost every employer will know that the major threat their workforce is currently facing is Cov19 , which would necessitate supplying full PPE kit against the virus ...not available ...or tomorrow morning send their whole workforce home.
So no food, water, electricity, or any services at all really. As for questions 1&3 yes and yes. |
|
By:
It's a contradictory stance to agree with points 1 and 3 but disagree with point 2, you don't get to pick and choose which threats you are obliged to protect your employees from.
You are also applying a broadbrush approach when you require to perform specific reviews starting with a risk assessment. Let's take supermarkets as an example. They will have performed risk assessments which will have taken government advice in to consideration. It is reasonable for a supermarket to assume that individuals already displaying symptoms of COVID-19 will observe self isolation advice. Thus such individuals should not be present in their stores. They have also implemented social distancing measures, designed specifically to reduce the possibility of a carrier of the virus passing their infection to staff or shoppers. This will not be fool proof, but will provide substantial protection to both their staff and their customers. Now lets look at hospitals, and specifically wards given over to the treatment of individuals tested positive for COVID-19. Clearly, a non infected individual is at far greater risk of contracting the virus in this environment than in a supermarket where social distancing measures are being observed. Thus the measures that require to be put in place will be more extensive. And the NHS has produced extensive documentation and guidance as to what these measures should be, PPE being one major element of this. That there is a statutory obligation placed on employers to ensure that they provide appropriate PPE to their employees is non disputable. That enhanced measures have been implemented in hospitals since the outbreak of COVID-19 is also non disputable. What is disputable, however, is whether or not sufficient supplies of PPE are available in individual hospitals when they are needed to ensure that the very enhanced guidelines that you hear Matt Hancock talk of are able to be applied. And that is what the Royal College of Nursing is concerned about. They have very publicly voiced their concerns as part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that the government continues to improve the delivery of the very equipment that they have agreed requires to be made available to frontline staff. |
|
By:
You just don't know when to stop digging do you, your post above explains why you were unwilling to clarify your original questions, because in the present situation they are meaningless.
Let's take your supermarket example, owners/employers will be fully aware that the main threat their staff face is from customers coming into the store carrying cov19, therefore they are knowingly putting their employees at risk, so to fulfil their 'statutory obligation' to safeguard their workers they would either have to provide full PPE kit or shut the store. Every store that is currently shut under the lockdown are displaying a notice stating "in order to protect our staff from Cov19 we are closed till further notice" Why not supermarkets? because the Government has deemed them essential and therefore the employers obligation regarding the safety of their staff, around cov19, is suspended, which makes your questions irrelevant.. |
|
By:
Don't die of ignorance.
|
|
By:
Any worker has the right to refuse to work if the6 feel the conditions are unsafe.
This applies to Doctors and Nurses. Further to the RCN statement Doctors at Gwent are advising staff not to to work if they are not fully protected. I remember going into the garage for petrol and noticing staff did not have latex gloves to take the cash or masks. Supermarkets were the same. This was a month ago or more. No hand sanitizer in the gym. The Government is still not advising people to wear masks when out particularly in confined areas like shops or on public transport. This is more disgusting than any RCN statement. |
|
By:
dr running a big hospital in wales on good morning britan this morning saying he wont allow his staff on the ward without all the designated ppe,reminding them itstheir obligation to follow the advice,guidelines, which is the point I,m trying to unsuccessfully make they don't sit in a canteen deciding if they should treat a patient go into so call red zone without the proper ppe its not their decision to make and if one of them decide to be a hero its up to his fellow workers to stop him,report him, its their duty under the act if they don't thy themselves are brteaking the act
its how the world of work works, if everyone cant trust everyone else to follow the rules no one would go on the job |
|
By:
Tripped over your own stupidity.
|
|
By:
potlis
ffs you cant suspend an act with legal powers b, because it suits someones agenda at a certain period of time,its what an act/law is put in place for,to stop this very thing happening the government is quite clear any job that cant be done within the 2 metres guidelines has to be stopped ,its up to supermarkets in your example to adhere to it, because it suits supermarkets,customers to ignore the guidlines doesn't make them right, as in the bus drivers khan/TFL can expect plenty of compensation claims going in that they didn't do enough to protect their drivers under the HASAWA what happens or doesn't happen today isn't the end, but only the start of the story |
|
By:
potlis, when conducting a risk assessment, your first task is to identify the risks associated with the activity that you are assessing.
There are then two major factors that you are trying to understand and evaluate : [1] the frequency with which the activity is performed [2] the severity of the activity going wrong One thing that I can expect we can agree on is that death is the most highest level of severity. There will always be some element of risk associated with the performance of an activity, with a risk assessment being a tool to help you better understand the activity and its associated risks. Of course, the most effective way to eliminate risks associated with the activity is to cease performing the activity. However, this is often neither practical nor desirable. In the case of a hairdresser, it is quite easy to determine that this activity can be ceased. For the provision of essential supplies, such as food, I suspect that even you will accept that it is neither practical nor desirable to cease this activity. So, if you cannot cease the performance of the activity, you need to look at two groupings of actions you can take to reduce risk. The first grouping of actions seek to reduce the frequency with which an activity is performed. The second grouping of actions seek to utilise mitigating measures that can be implemented. The use of PPE is one such mitigating action, others exists, it is all dependant on the particular activity you are concerned with. For example, if you are performimg a pressure test on a valve at 15,000 PPI, you do it behind a blast wall, you don't perform the test in an open workshop. |
|
By:
That is interesting
Will the families of Bus Drivers sue TFL and Khan. I hope they do because both imho are guilty of criminal neglect. It goes to the top and the Directors of this organisation will have to demonstrate the measures they took to keep their employees safe as it was their duty of care. They can be jailed for a serious breach although sheite rolls downhill and they will try and put the blame on others lower down the food chain. I dare say the drivers will in some email have been told they are not allowed to drive a bus without proper PPE and you can bet your bottom dollar they wasn’t enough. |
|
By:
potlis, I hope this helps, but please feel free to continue to be abusive, it is a common response on internet forums from those who are unable to construct logical arguments.
|
|
By:
Poster
Simply reinforces the point that the questions being asked were meaningless in the present situation, buses are still being driven even though employers know drivers have already lost their lives whilst carrying out their duties,what passengers choose to do is neither here or there. I think you will find the Government has given itself the right to do almost as it pleases regarding the law during the current crises. |
|
By:
during the current crisis,been the relevant phrase
the fun and games will start later |
|
By:
Abusive Angoose? You referring to your "don't die of ignorance" post.
No it doesn't help because no where in your reply do you mention the risk associated with cov19, which I assume was the point of the thread. Doesn't matter how much you try to swerve it the fact remains that many employers know the greatest danger their staff face is from the virus, therefore they are currently unable to fully fulfil their statutory safety obligations, it's called reality, which make your questions irrelevant. |
|
By:
ignorance (NOUN)
lack of knowledge or information. stupid (ADJECTIVE) having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense. A significant distinction between the two terms. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
potlis, can you tell me a significant difference in the mitigating measures that you would put in place when pressure testing a valve with gas rather than water
Just looking for the one, when you have discovered it you will realise why. You may or may not know what it is, If not, that would be ignorance. Once you perform just a few minutes of research on the internet, you will have informed yourself, thus will not die of ignorance on that particular issue. |
|
By:
I find the assumption that I'm ignorant about what interests me, which isn't pressure valves, very insulting.
|
|
By:
I have made no such assumption, I have merely pointed out that anyone who has no knowledge of a particular subject can be described as ignorant.
It is always important to resist the temptation to jump to conclusions, as it invariably leads to poor decision making. Most of us have a tendency to jump to conclusions, I am no exception. However, I have recognised this particular personal failing and strive to eliminate it in my daily activities, further recognising that I will not always be successful. |
|
By:
I am also always keen to learn about new subjects, educating myself and eliminating aspects of my ignorance.
|
|
By:
Just a generalisation then, advise to all us forum users, perhaps you could get betfair to put it on a header page of its own.
|
|
By:
don't think you can compare soldiers not having basic kit with doctors/nurses not having enough PPE. after all soldiers don't need an unlimited supply and changing it several times a day
i'd really like to know how much extra PPE is being used now compared to normal course of events. if it's many times the normal amount required then it's an impossible situation and throw in nursing homes as well |
|
By:
For what's it worth, a pressure test using water as the test medium can be conducted in the open air.
However, a pressure test using gas as the test medium should be conducted in a submerged tank. Both, of course, should be conducted within an appropriately enclosed area. Using a submerged tank provides an additional means of detecting any leaks at the earliest stage due to the production of tell-tales bubbles. Tests using gas have a higher potential for damage than those using water as the gas will continue to act as an accelerant for any projectiles released from the test failure. The energy stored in the water will be immediately dissipated via any leak, thus will no longer act as an accelerant. It is not the object being tested that will likely cause most damage should a significant leak occur, it is more likely that the test fittings will be projected at high velocity with the potential to travel significant distances if not interrupted by a suitable test cell wall. Hence the need to be particularly vigilant with the maintenance of such fittings. |