There has been much talk over the years about health and safety policy both for the manufacturer and supplier, and for the customer as an employer. When times are hard the focus on such policies is enhanced and due to the rigors of austerity in the recent economic crisis, much of that focus has been negative. This is especially true when costs are being trimmed to ‘stay afloat.’

For manufacturing there has been much legislation introduced over the past 25 to 30 years, which has to be looked at in the wider context, i.e. the consolidation of EU legislation and the enabling of the ‘common market’ that would allow for the free movement of goods and services. The bureaucracy of the legislation may result in added costs, but this must be weighed against the perceived benefits of an open market.

For manufacturers the ‘level playing field’ is more to do with the policing of the legislation, which would see non-compliant equipment being removed from free circulation until the non-compliance is addressed. In many cases this is more to do with the bureaucratic issues such as the provision of information, which will ultimately be required by the customer to assist in meeting in-use legislative requirements.

What are often forgotten are the costs involved in generating information from expensive testing that has to be carried out. No one wants legislation voluntarily but if it is to be imposed then it should be done in a pro-active manner. 

The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 introduced the concept of ‘pro-activity,’ yet the HSE seldom acts on non-compliance with EU legislation unless there is an accident.

For the customer as an employer, the in-use legislation for equipment is almost exclusively being sourced from EU legislation. The protection of the worker is key to most EU legislation, which in itself generates bureaucratic actions including the keeping of records, health surveillance and reporting of accidents – all of which creates a cost burden to the employer. 

There are improvements that can be made; indeed towards the end of 2013 revised codes of practices have tried to help with the reduction in the cost burden. 

The employer is responsible for the health and welfare of employees in many ways. For example they are responsible for any health issues relating to the use of work equipment, such as noise and vibration, which are both addressed in separate, but related EU legislation. 

Monitoring the exposure of employees to both noise and vibration imposes costs, as does the need for health surveillance. Information required to form part of the overall action is supplied by manufacturers and suppliers of handheld powered equipment. 

As stated above, manufacturers need to perform expensive tests to establish noise and vibration information, which is not present with non-compliant handheld powered equipment. Many employers wanting to reduce costs will look to the cheaper end of the market for their handheld powered tools. They may well think that where no information is supplied on noise and vibration for a particular tool, using information from another manufacturer of a similar tool will ‘fit the bill’. This has been shown to be an unwise move, with examples of similar cheap tools having vibration values four times higher than a mainstream equivalent. The employer may not discover the real ‘cost’ of that tool until an employee some years later suffers from vibration-related disorders.

Times may be hard, and legislation may be perceived to be over-bearing, but is the ‘knee jerk’ reaction to dispense with it the right solution? The legislative system has after all been developed so that employees are safe in the workplace. 

When times are hard rational thought should still prevail so that a considered evaluation of the legislative process is undertaken to perhaps remove the ‘nice to have’ and only maintain the ‘must have.’ This will ensure that down the line the actual removal of a legislative requirement does not come to haunt either the manufacturer or employer when the employee makes a claim resulting from a lack of protection for the worker.