I was going to post earlier, but went off to paint the fence instead (Oh joy!)
In the meantime, Sundae has neatly covered the subject so I'll just add this from the Daily Telegraph.
Quote:
Health and safety has become synonymous with nanny statism, interfering jobsworths, ludicrous litigation and risk aversion. And yet the Health and Safety at Work Act, which is 40 years old this summer, has arguably saved more lives than any other piece of legislation, including the ban on drink driving or the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. It may well have reduced deaths by 5,000 or more.
So how did an Act that was by any measure a milestone in social reform turn into one of the most disparaged statutes of recent times? Partly it has to do with the way the law is interpreted – and often wrongly blamed for absurd restrictions imposed on perfectly innocuous practices. But it also reflects an absolutist view that it is possible to avoid accidental injury or death, rather than simply to reduce the circumstances in which they might occur.
|
Let’s fly the flag for the life-saving health and safety law
Given the Telegraphs's general outlook on life, it's surprising to see the article published there. However, some of the more forthright comments do tend to redress the balance.
Incidentally, I suspect that the term 'jobsworth' might not survive a trans-Atlantic exchange of electrons so allow me to assist.
Quote:
|
"Jobsworth" is a British colloquial word derived from the phrase "I can't do that, it's more than my job's worth", meaning it might lose the person their job: taking the initiative and performing an action, and perhaps in the process breaking a rule, is beyond what the person feels their job description allows. Wikipedia.
|