English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

As much info/detail as possible please :)

2006-11-15 04:27:48 · 13 answers · asked by Sparkles* 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

13 answers

Because otherwise people would be forced to work in dangerous conditions and there'd be nothing you could do about it. You could be asked to work on a wet floor or with no safety gear when working machinery.Thats all the info you need unless you enjoy pain!

2006-11-15 04:29:49 · answer #1 · answered by The Shadow 3 · 0 0

It's when you live in a country where it doesn't exist that all becomes clear. Workmen cheerfully clamber onto roofs and dangerous scaffolding and fall off, with nobody picking up the tab for their hospital care or funeral. People lose body parts in machinery and don't get compensation. There are no regulations to limit the amount of time which people spend in health threatening situations and there is no legislation to protect people against dangerous chemicals. The whole purpose of health and safety at work legislation is to protect people's health and welfare as much as possible. The prospect of having to pay a heavy fine or even serve a term of imprisonment keeps directors on their toes. The existence of a health and safety inspectorate ensures that standards are adhered to in the working place.

2006-11-15 13:05:13 · answer #2 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 1 0

Each year around 1.6 million people are injured at work. Additionally, approaching 2.5 million people suffer illness that is directly caused or made worse by their employment. Preventable occupational injuries, ill health and fatalities continue to be an unacceptable blight on the lives of working people. This catalogue of human misery is matched by the economic costs, both to the individuals concerned and to society as a whole. In the United Kingdom the HSE has estimated that the overall cost to British employers of work-related ill-health and accidents is between £4.5 billion and £9.5 billion a year. This is equivalent to between 5% and 10% of all UK industrial companies' gross trading profits. The cost to the economy as a whole is put at between £11 billion and £16 billion, or 1-2% of Gross Domestic Product.

It is against this backdrop that we recently commemorated 25 years of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Robens Report which brought it about. The Robens Committee called for fundamental changes in the way safety was regulated in Britain. Its proposals, incorporated in the HSW Act, were seen as providing the basis for the creation of a more effective system of regulation which would result in improved levels of worker protection. Where have we gone wrong? And what, if anything, might be done to remove this largely preventable burden on society? These questions are at the core of the project currently underway with the prestigious Institute of Employment Rights - "Robens Revisited: The case for a review of occupational health and safety legislation".
See source for more

2006-11-15 12:36:38 · answer #3 · answered by Julie B 5 · 1 0

The government put this act in place to ensure that employers take responsibility for their employees health and safety while they are at work. It also means that employers can not be sued in the event of an accident if it can be shown that they followed the health and safety rules.

2006-11-15 12:35:29 · answer #4 · answered by claire c 2 · 0 0

To protect the health of an employee and make sure that the environment in which they work is safe. There have been many work-related deaths and injuries in the past and this law is to protect against this from happening again and again. This holds the employer liable for working conditions to ensure that all measures are taken to protect the employee (for example, employers must provide protection to employees handling harmful materials by giving them the proper clothing and masks and ensuring the work area is well ventilated).

2006-11-15 12:39:45 · answer #5 · answered by edawns 3 · 0 0

Because workers were getting injured and / or killed and employers didn't really care, they just call hiring for another employee. Employees are considered expendable by management, so groups (mostly unions) got legislation going that would institute some safety measures to try an prevent some of the injuries and deaths to their fellow workers.

2006-11-15 12:33:14 · answer #6 · answered by kate 7 · 0 0

its to keep you safe in your workplace
to make sure you do not come in to danger from any obstructions in walk ways fire doors and that you have the correct equipment for the job that you do

if you work in an office no trailing wires
no obstructions near stairwells doors or fire exits
that all cabinets are placed where they do not cause obstructions to workers that you don not over stack paper work that you do not have to stand on a chair to get files etc

if you don't know your own health and safety guidelines for your work place ask your boss as there should be a book let available for you to read and you should have a health and safety officer.

2006-11-15 13:35:02 · answer #7 · answered by AARONLEE AND SASHA 3 · 0 0

1): To stop idiots from harming themselves
2): To make sure that a decent tradesman has to take twice as long over any given job (and therefore have to charge twice as much even if he doesn't particularly want to!) in order to comply with some bloody ridiculous regulation
3): To provide a nose-poking do-gooder with a job.
4): So that we can all remember that Thatcher woman who came up with it all.

2006-11-15 12:58:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It's a way of allowing employees to not have to take personal responsibility for anything. It's always the employers fault. "They gave me the wrong ladder".

2006-11-15 16:21:35 · answer #9 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0 0

Because people were being made to work in unsafe environments.

2006-11-15 12:40:10 · answer #10 · answered by markpoo 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers