Safety or Basket case?
GD – “But here is Sterle the magnificent asking Wingnut what type of risk is involved by having 1000 ASA staff made redundant!! 1000! And not a shred of paper to indicate a robust SAFETY risk assessment on each redundant position has been executed.
No doubt Purple Haze (no longer Electric Blue) did plenty of financial analysis and assessments, and kissed Houston’s ass, but operationally and safety-wise it is not a consideration.”
Good catch GD; this is one of the topics I will be relying on Hansard detail to look at, carefully. Wingnut did slide around the issue with the ‘Montreal’ alibi and I believe the committee allowed it, as a courtesy. But ‘core business’ was mentioned. The Halfwit spouted carefully rehearsed lines oft repeated ‘risk analysis’ and similar; but he was careful step around some of the less obvious effects of the ‘great shedding’ and pedantically repeated the ‘type’ of ‘analysis’ conducted. It makes for a layered confection of cut out points where parts may be individually tested, but the whole is not examined. I need Hansard –
But what I’m driving at is: OK, the risk cake part of loosing the tea lady is done and dusted, little risk there; tick. But let’s say her meagre stipend covered the cost of DIY coffee machines, so the desperate and thirsty must help themselves; two spin backs here. The time taken by the thirsty to make their own, the time spent chatting (as you do) in the kitchen with others and the excuse to dawdle in the corridors can and does reduce the ‘value for money’ return of work done by those on a much higher hourly rate of pay than the tea lady. Then lets consider spillage, the risk attendant to someone in a hurry slipping on a spilled drink, landing on a piece of broken crockery and needing medical attention, then stress relief leave and recovery time. No tea lady – not a problem, stand alone; but as part of a holistic appraisal of a ‘safety v economy’ case, it must be considered. I feel that is what Halfwit was espousing with his oft repeated ‘safety analysis’ jargon. What I think he was desperate to avoid was exposing how the snapped off parts are removed from the whole and only the remaining parts are tested further. Like checking the tyres but ignoring the brakes and then rightfully declaring the tyres are safe. They are, but is it safe to drive? Sorry if that’s all a bit muddled but it’s the best I can do without Hansard. MTF is a pretty safe bet.
Toot toot.
GD – “But here is Sterle the magnificent asking Wingnut what type of risk is involved by having 1000 ASA staff made redundant!! 1000! And not a shred of paper to indicate a robust SAFETY risk assessment on each redundant position has been executed.
No doubt Purple Haze (no longer Electric Blue) did plenty of financial analysis and assessments, and kissed Houston’s ass, but operationally and safety-wise it is not a consideration.”
Good catch GD; this is one of the topics I will be relying on Hansard detail to look at, carefully. Wingnut did slide around the issue with the ‘Montreal’ alibi and I believe the committee allowed it, as a courtesy. But ‘core business’ was mentioned. The Halfwit spouted carefully rehearsed lines oft repeated ‘risk analysis’ and similar; but he was careful step around some of the less obvious effects of the ‘great shedding’ and pedantically repeated the ‘type’ of ‘analysis’ conducted. It makes for a layered confection of cut out points where parts may be individually tested, but the whole is not examined. I need Hansard –
But what I’m driving at is: OK, the risk cake part of loosing the tea lady is done and dusted, little risk there; tick. But let’s say her meagre stipend covered the cost of DIY coffee machines, so the desperate and thirsty must help themselves; two spin backs here. The time taken by the thirsty to make their own, the time spent chatting (as you do) in the kitchen with others and the excuse to dawdle in the corridors can and does reduce the ‘value for money’ return of work done by those on a much higher hourly rate of pay than the tea lady. Then lets consider spillage, the risk attendant to someone in a hurry slipping on a spilled drink, landing on a piece of broken crockery and needing medical attention, then stress relief leave and recovery time. No tea lady – not a problem, stand alone; but as part of a holistic appraisal of a ‘safety v economy’ case, it must be considered. I feel that is what Halfwit was espousing with his oft repeated ‘safety analysis’ jargon. What I think he was desperate to avoid was exposing how the snapped off parts are removed from the whole and only the remaining parts are tested further. Like checking the tyres but ignoring the brakes and then rightfully declaring the tyres are safe. They are, but is it safe to drive? Sorry if that’s all a bit muddled but it’s the best I can do without Hansard. MTF is a pretty safe bet.
Toot toot.