| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 102599 | 2009-08-25 10:48:00 | No Sky For This Guy. | Hitech (9024) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 804228 | 2009-08-26 23:53:00 | Thats good to know that an independent contractor is covered by Sky. Good to know independent contractors are covered at all. |
prefect (6291) | ||
| 804229 | 2009-08-27 06:58:00 | Sigh. I'm guessing 3 ropes, how many did you have in mind? And the principle is responsible, as is everyone else, Sky cannot contract out of the law.Its their site, they are orginsing the work and taking the money. i'll have to pick your brains on this working at heights stuff one day. i can't see 3 ropes going far at all. Sky's legal eagles usually have the contracts/setups to favor them no matter what. in all my dealings with them Sky does no wrong. nothing is ever Sky's fault, so i am interested to see what the outcome of this is. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 804230 | 2009-10-10 05:59:00 | There are no mandatory requirements when working at a height of less than three metres. I would also like to mention that most single storey buildings are more than 3 metres high at the apex. However, you still need to take all practicable steps to prevent fall hazards. It is also worth noting that the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia either already require the mandatory use of fall-prevention equipment or are moving towards this requirement. These jurisdictions also have a lower threshold, as workers working at a height of two metres or six feet are required to use fall-prevention equipment. This may mean that, depending on your work circumstances, it will still be appropriate to provide fall-prevention equipment for your workers if they are at risk. It would also be in line with standards from overseas. The court cases will determine who is responsible, but in general Sky are responsable to ensure their contractor (City Aerials) are keeping their workers and contractors safe and likewise City Aerialsare responsablefor their workers and contractors. If Sky or City Aerials did not audit the H&S practices then they can be held liable. I am pleased that my company has a H&S policy which covers all our climbing and is audited on a very regular basis both on the staff, managers and contractors alike. |
totaratree (15200) | ||
| 804231 | 2009-10-10 07:00:00 | but at the end of the day will it change anything? not likely. the ripnbust contractors are favored because they are fast and will do anything no questions asked. good workmanship, safety etc are always low on the list. they can fine, put new rules in, audit all they like, it simply won't change the economics of it. the good guys will be a lot safer for it, but they will be broke. i understand OSH looked at this many years ago and the industry told them where to stick it, simply because the whole industry would fall over. end of the day, workman safety is not something customers are willing to pay for. you also have to factor in that most of the sales in the industry is to those outside of the industry. even if they enforce all the rules to the industry, customers will simply hire those outside of the industry, which at present do about 50-70% of the work anyway. |
tweak'e (69) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||