Jamie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLFAJQ7SLew&feature=fvw

Steve vRS

Jesus!

Aren't you happy we have the Health and Safety at Work Act.

It's a shame the Lawyers have skewed the interpretation of 'reasonably practicable'.

Steve

warrenm2

good work ethic - get the job done!

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I don't see what the problem is....I mean a safety rope would have been a reasonable idea, but other than that....what is the issue?

Leslie

It all used to be done in that style in this country.

Les

Steve vRS

Because as a nation, we quite rightly do not tolerate people dying at work.

https://www.scoobynet.com/non-scooby...-refinery.html

This is what 'Elf and Safety is should be about, preventing death and incidents like above - not inspecting trees in case branches fall off or not allowing children to go to a snow bound school in case they slip. Those risks are tolerable to most of society apart from ambulance chasing, no win no fee lawyers. The lunatics in this respect have taken over the asylum.

The risk of dying at work when there are readily available measures to prevent that death is not tolerable.

Steve

RA Dunk

+1

I admit they do take it a bit far at times but it's all for the better.

SirFozzalot

At least he was wearing a harness and was clipped on.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

That building was built using bamboo for scafolding as well. TBH, I think we forget its a devoloping country governed by peopel who have no care for human rights. The country is vastly overpopulated so they consider the population as expendable.

Yet everything we buy now is "made in china" FFS. That country is making huge earnings via production for developed nations. I just had a quick rummage on my desk, and everything on it is made in China. So basically our consumerism has supported the growth of a country that generally doesn't give a s**t.

I've long said that we should ahve trade embargos on products China, not for H&S and work conditions, but to protect our own industry. No developed country can operate any form of production profitability without relocating or contaracting its production to China.

Anyhoo, 10/10 for improvisation. British workers could learn alot from them (team work, getting the job done, making use of what finite resources they are given etc.)

Leslie

I agree that work practices should be as safe as can be reasonably expected.

I think it seems to go a bit far in many ways these days. People used to have the common sense and ability to look after themselves very well in earlier times.

Teaching people to rely on others to keep them totally safe is a dangerous way to go about it. Too easy for for something to go wrong unexpectedly when it is too late to save oneself because you did not have that sense of fear in the back of your mind, and it is often over restrictive on the job in hand.

Les

r32

Whats the problem? He had a hard hat on?
Oh just realised, I know whats wrong........................





No hi vis

Jamie

And he has trainers on i bet he has no CSCS Card

warrenm2

You sir, are an economic idiot! Go read some Adam Smith http://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations/

Jamie

Steve vRS

It's a common edict in the real industrial world that, "You are the Person Responsible for your own safety." In fact, this is a fundamental of the HSW act.

However, what businesses are all too well aware of, is if someone falls over a cable, burns themselves on hot tea, puts their back out moving a desk, their Union or ClaimsDirect are only too willing to point the finger at an employer and sue. Unfortunately, the courts often side against employers, backing the "common man" - hence the need to preempt these ridiculous events and treat people like idiots with rules.

This was a major reason for the BP Texas City Disaster. Occupational health and safety (Slips, Trips and Falls) compliance was excellent as the management had put in a lot of effort to prevent these minor accidents.

However, this had taken away the focus from the many 1 in 1000 events that cause catastrophe. in this case, killing 15 people.

Steve

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

A brief synopsis of your own viewpoints would be appreciated for those who have a short attention span. Especially when it comes to Scottish philiosophers.

(hint: Your point being? Free market? At what cost? Is China a "free" market? )

warrenm2

Free trade makes nations richer. Cheap imports mean we have to spend less of our production on the basics and frees us to do other more productive things. Think of 14th century agriculture. Inefficient and hugely time consuming. Now we can feed hugely more people cheaper with less manpower. A good thing. Or you could just read the flipping page I linked!

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Ahh. I see, we are more productive meaning the UK dumps its entire manufacturing industry to outsouce it overseas and employs its lower class population in the civil/public sector paid via our taxes.

Maybe some found a role in that booming financial sector we had before the bubble burst? Well not sure about you, but I doubt an assembly line worker is capable of a task above that of a call centre worker, oh, no wait. That was outsourced to the third world too.

Refering to an Eighteenth century Scotsmen isn't the best way to make your own point (Eighteenth century = outdated viewpoint not adapted to the modern era , and Scotsman = tight **** )

warrenm2

I see I was more correct with my first comment than I even imagined

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

At leat I can enter a debate without the need to directly insult the person I'm replying to. Manners my good man; You have none.

Leslie

Yes I understand your point about the sueing society that we are living in. This is a symptom of the general greed that we see so much of these days. How that can be changed is very difficult to see.

In earlier days when people did have the nous to take care of themselves at work as part of the job, if they did have some kind of mishap they would be prepared to accept that they were at fault and would not dream of taking their firm to court in an effort to make money out of the whole business.

It must also be associated with the human rights act which NL tied us to and has been a millstone around the country's neck ever since.

Les

warrenm2

Well, before you debate, you might want to brush up on some economics so you can have some idea of what you're actually talking about.
1) The uk hasnt "dumped its entire manufacturing industry", it has infact grown pretty much year on year - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02...uring_figures/
2) I make no claim as the the number of civil servants
3) I make no claim on the capabilities of assembly line workers
4) If it is outsourced and cheaper to do it abroad that means the uk is richer. See comparative advantage - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
5) Referring to one of the great thinkers on the subject as "outdated viewpoint not adapted to the modern era" merely demonstrates your ignorance of the subject

I do claim that free trade and technological progress makes us richer. That is the story of the world since the 1700's. As for the insult part, you didnt bother to read the further information I pointed you to, and seem to be closed to the idea that you seem to think you are right and three hundred years of economic study and evidence are wrong. That kind of thinking earns you no respect whatsoever and indeed quite the opposite.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

If I recall correctly from my human geography lessons long long ago (I'm sure any mistake on this will be pointed out, inadvertant typos and all ).
Smith was against overtaxation to fund excessive government spending and interaction. Quite correct - in the ideal world, but this is not what we have in the UK, hence his ideologies do not properly apply. Anyway, have a cherry pick of this:


Given that the time of Smith's existence a) the NHS didn't exist, nor state education and the scale of state funding was minuscule to what it is now and b) The thought of China as a production capital would have been laughable, and foreign production of that scale would never have been envisaged. Serious matters that has had an impact on UK industry, the employment that went with it, and the tax burden placed upon people and businesses.


Over the past twenty years there has been a continued migration of workforce from the large scale manufacturing sector to other sectors as manufacturing and assembly is relocated overseas, workforces mainly went to the commercial and public sectors (or onto the benefits system - another burden which contradicts Smith's ideologies as it require heavy taxation to fund it), of which the public sector has expanded hugely under the past government. Of course the public sector has to be funded via our taxation. Whilst Smith is in support of basic state services, it contradicts his ideologies for an affordable simple taxation system that doesn't restrict productivity. Tax revenue has to be raised in a complex manner to appear fair to lower classes, in doing so it severely restricts UK private businesses; which relocates overseas or off loads its UK based workforce, and uses overseas production/services to maintain profitability.


This flawed approach can be seen in an example such as Dyson. UK based, designed, tested and manufactured. For profitability reasons, production is moved overseas, the company reaps rewards from this, as expected (they made huge savings). And its invested in employing more people in the UK than before. Good? Not quite. One has to scratch at the surface to look at the type of job roles it now provides; For the educated, higher level workforce it offers plenty of roles. But the lower level workforce is now near non-existent (barring cleaners, and secretary staff). Its this shift in the type of job roles that leaves a surplus of low level workers; The government tries to address this surplus via funded higher education/retraining and benefits (Job seekers etc), as well as an ill-conceived drive to get people into self employment (which often ends in tears if individuals concerned don't have the capacity or know how to correctly operate a business). That government intervention continues this vicious circle as it needs to rake in more tax to do this.


All this whilst money leaks out of our economy. A portion of the money paid by UK businesses to outsource work overseas is lost from our economy overseas. Even if owns its overseas operations, it is still leaked out by paying that foreign workforce. Now this may appear fine if the UK based business has a huge export industry and operates globally (Dyson; although its not fantastic, as a third of its products are sold in the UK alone, so its still heavily reliant on the UK consumer) and the company is taxed in such a way that money goes back into the UK economy. More money in than money out, good? yes? Well, in theory at least. However for it to work properly that money coming in has to trickle its way down to the lower class to support them. Lower classes should get their income via wages, now if that was in a low level job role like in many manufacturing roles, that's fine. But if there are no low level jobs offered by large UK companies (as they are overseas), it goes to the middle classes in the UK based management and development departments. Who will in turn spend it, and its where they spend it on UK goods (such as farm produce, not electronics made in china ) and services, where it'll trickle to the lower class as money in the form of wages be it directly or indirectly (cashiers, shelf stacker, barmen, salesmen, cleaners etc.). Ahh but factor in this; the middle class is mortgaged to the hilt as part and parcel of the boom we had in a financial sector, so a majority of what they earn doesn't all trickle down, a chunk of it goes straight to the financial sector as loan payments. Excepting credit cards of course, until one hits the credit limit or defaults on payments.


So we have two holes already; a shortfall of directly employed lower level workers, and a middle class that's cash strapped and paying a large chunk of its income straight to the financial sector, of which invests in overseas (OK when it works, tragic when it doesn't, and only benefits investors, not the lower class) of which banks have further minimised its trickle down to lower classes by relocating call centres overseas, and closed down as many local UK branches.


These are just simplistic examples, but none the less it is the compounding of it all that is the problem. And it all starts with money going overseas, but not coming back and not trickling down to the lower class. The UK relies heavily consumerism. Now say if every penny in every pound spent is lost abroad, it may seen insignificant, but on a wide range of items over a sustained period is highly significant; Annual household expenditure as of 2009 is £875 billion (not far off from UK's entire national debt), if every penny in every pound is lost abroad, that accounts for £8.75 billion out of our economy every year.


It would be interesting to calculate the exact loss. But it is nigh on impossible, due to every single sector, industry, and person buying some sort of item made with involvement of China. Be it a pen, toothbrush, electrical item or the parts within the electrical item (capacitors, transistors etc.) to parts on a car (even if the car is assembled in the UK, discrete components can come from overseas), the packaging for a UK consumable (say kitchen cleaner spray - the trigger gun is probably made in China, but the liquid is made in the UK. And the machines used to manufacture in the UK using discrete components made in China. It bewildering and nearly impossible to find something made today that doesn't have any involvement with Chinese manufacturing directly or indirectly, be it the product itself, or the tooling used to make it using something that has a part made in China or any operation within a business that doesn't rely on something made in China (computers, lighting, chairs, the wheels on the chair etc).

warrenm2

An impressive response that you have clearly spent some time on - kudos to you for that!

You still however cant grasp the idea of comparative advantage. Its a good thing that makes people rich - you seem to be arguing otherwise. Until you work this out, the rest of your post is waffle. You put up several irrelavent points such as NHS etc. The way the economies work is still unchanged whether it exists or not. It is a straw man arguement. Similarly you propose the idea that because we have a high taxation regime this "disproves" the model of free trade. That is a non sequiteur.

You say money is "leaking out of our economy" (to overseas in the form of jobs and services). Well they are providing them cheaper than we can do at home. Why manufacture in Wiltshire whn you can save 50% by doing so in China? You can then produce a cheaper product which more people can afford to buy. They can then have money left over to do other things. This is a good thing. If you cant even see this basic point then there is no point "debating" as you cant grasp the fundamental issues. There has been a reduction in the number of jobs in manufacturing, and yet as I demonstrated manufacturing output is up. Therefore we are doing more with less. This is a good thing. Jobs are a cost not a benefit.

Value is added not just by manufactured goods but by services also. The UK financial industry is highly successful and exports its services all over the world, and earns a huge amount of money for the uk gvmt. Your flippant denigration of it is thuggish and ill-educated.

As for your calculation, its all total rubbish. Please read an economics book for all our sakes

Jamie

Chill out warren ffs i will give you a ice cream free of charge

Please read an economics book for all our sakes

I think most of us did that at school why would we need to read "them again"

warrenm2

Cool, can I have a vanilla please!

Jamie

Sure, do you want a flake with that

Think i posted this before not sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyp0AtsODx4

Leslie

I'm sure this did not start as an economy thread!

Les

Leslie

Looks like a big shortage of plain common sense in that affair.

Les