Anti-postie vendetta

[Howard]

Phil Cook <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>How many of the reckless, "couldn't care less" Royal Mail employees
> >>shown in the pictures were wearing safety helmets?
> >
> >Ah, another "crime".
>
> Actually a "health and safety at work" issue. It's a bit like
> construction workers having to wear safety boots and hard hats.
>
> In theory continued refusal to wear a helmet at work by a Royal Mail
> employee performing a cycle based delivery will lead to a conduct code
> warning and eventually to dismissal. At least most of them are wearing
> Hi-Vis clothing.

Not this load of nonsense again! It is NOT a 'health and safety at
work issue'. Cycle helemets are specifically excluded from HSE
definitions of what constitutes PPE. Posties can only be 'required' to
wear a 'helmet' as part of their uniform, and given that many of them
dress like tramps enforcing this particular item of 'uniform' seems to
be little more than discrimination against cycling posties.

The following is the official line on this very issue from the HSE. It
is to Colin Clarke of the Uk cycle helmet forum.

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your report on the effect cycle helmets have on cycle
safety. Unfortunately HSE are able to offer you little help in this
area as we only have responsibility towards cyclists while they are
engaged in a work activity. These cyclists will represent a very small
number of the total. HSE has no remit with regards to workers cycling
to and from work. Furthermore cycle helmets used on the public highway
are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an
employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and
safety grounds, they will however be free to require employees to wear
cycle helmets as part of their uniform.

HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it
falls within the scope of PPE. Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets
is a matter on individual choice, any stance to the contrary could
potentially be challenged on human rights grounds. With regards to the
use of cycle helmets on the public roads by members of the public,
this is a policy area that falls totally within the remit of the
Department for Transport.

Yours,
Jon Windeatt
Health & Safety Executive
Safety Policy Directorate
Workplace Transport & Special Hazards Section.

30 Sept 2002

 

[Howard]

More info...

Apparently the street scene is Stakes Hill Road in Waterlooville,
Hants.

The net is closing!

Anyone who lives around there like to point out this loonies stalking,
obsessive behaviour and threats of violence to their local postie? I
will keep all the images on file including the full face shots and
'stalking shots' taken of off-duty postmen in case they feel a police
investigation is warranted.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:35:52 +0100, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>>How many of the reckless, "couldn't care less" Royal Mail employees
>>>shown in the pictures were wearing safety helmets?

>Actually a "health and safety at work" issue. It's a bit like
>construction workers having to wear safety boots and hard hats.

Nope. As Howard says, it is a uniform issue alone. Helmets are
exempted from H&S legislation. It might be nice if that changed,
since the same change would necessarily bring the driving of company
vehicles on business under the auspices of the HSE, with possible
massive fines for employers failing to control dangerous driving

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Phil Cook]

On 26 Oct 2004 01:16:42 -0700, Howard wrote:

>> In theory continued refusal to wear a helmet at work by a Royal Mail
>> employee performing a cycle based delivery will lead to a conduct code
>> warning and eventually to dismissal. At least most of them are wearing
>> Hi-Vis clothing.
>
>Not this load of nonsense again! It is NOT a 'health and safety at
>work issue'. Cycle helemets are specifically excluded from HSE
>definitions of what constitutes PPE. Posties can only be 'required' to
>wear a 'helmet' as part of their uniform, and given that many of them
>dress like tramps enforcing this particular item of 'uniform' seems to
>be little more than discrimination against cycling posties.

Then why are we continualy told it is a health and safety issue by
management?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

 

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:35:52 +0100 someone who may be Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Actually a "health and safety at work" issue. It's a bit like
>construction workers having to wear safety boots and hard hats.

Utterly incorrect, for reasons already given.

>In theory continued refusal to wear a helmet at work by a Royal Mail
>employee performing a cycle based delivery will lead to a conduct code
>warning and eventually to dismissal.

A postal worker has already been sacked for not wearing a plastic
hat.

The "requirement" to wear them came about largely as a result of the
dickheads in the postal workers' trade union. A clear example of a
trade union working against the interests of its members.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:50:50 +0100 someone who may be Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>Not this load of nonsense again! It is NOT a 'health and safety at
>>work issue'. Cycle helemets are specifically excluded from HSE
>>definitions of what constitutes PPE. Posties can only be 'required' to
>>wear a 'helmet' as part of their uniform, and given that many of them
>>dress like tramps enforcing this particular item of 'uniform' seems to
>>be little more than discrimination against cycling posties.
>
>Then why are we continualy told it is a health and safety issue by
>management?

Because they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:50:50 +0100, Phil Cook
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>Not this load of nonsense again! It is NOT a 'health and safety at
>>work issue'. Cycle helemets are specifically excluded from HSE
>>definitions of what constitutes PPE.

>Then why are we continualy told it is a health and safety issue by
>management?

Because they are embarrassed at being duped by a small clique of
zealots in the CWU?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[James Annan]

Howard wrote:
> More info...
>
> Apparently the street scene is Stakes Hill Road in Waterlooville,
> Hants.
>
> The net is closing!
>
> Anyone who lives around there like to point out this loonies stalking,
> obsessive behaviour and threats of violence to their local postie? I
> will keep all the images on file including the full face shots and
> 'stalking shots' taken of off-duty postmen in case they feel a police
> investigation is warranted.

But who will stalk the stalker's stalker?

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] (Howard) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Anyone who lives around there like to point out this loonies stalking,
> obsessive behaviour and threats of violence to their local postie? I
> will keep all the images on file including the full face shots and
> 'stalking shots' taken of off-duty postmen in case they feel a police
> investigation is warranted.

I would have thought the posties' union would be interested in
investigating this nutter.

--
Dave...

 

[Rich]

>
>
> They are running that risk which us strange as their requirement to
> wear helmets is supposedly a uniform issue and nothing to do with
> safety. Now posties are notorious for their relaxed attitude to
> wearing the compnay uniform. Most of the helmeted ones would appear to
> be risking the sack for some uniform infringement or other. The Post
> Office appears to be highly selective in its enforcement of uniform.

I've sometimes wondered about this: since it was the posties union which
insisted on helmets being worn, how would a union official defend someone
who was being disciplined for not wearing a helmet? especially since there
are many more obvious infringements of the uniform code?
>
> --
> Dave...

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:40:11 GMT, "Rich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've sometimes wondered about this: since it was the posties union which
>insisted on helmets being worn, how would a union official defend someone
>who was being disciplined for not wearing a helmet? especially since there
>are many more obvious infringements of the uniform code?

The answer is: they don't, unless there are other factors involved
(e.g. the plastic hat was stolen).

I do not know how this compares with their reaction to sackins over
other uniform infringements. I believe there would be widespread
outrage if a postie was sacked for wearing a non-regulation coat, for
example.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Tim Hall]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:02:51 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:50:50 +0100 someone who may be Phil Cook
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>>Not this load of nonsense again! It is NOT a 'health and safety at
>>>work issue'. Cycle helemets are specifically excluded from HSE
>>>definitions of what constitutes PPE. Posties can only be 'required' to
>>>wear a 'helmet' as part of their uniform, and given that many of them
>>>dress like tramps enforcing this particular item of 'uniform' seems to
>>>be little more than discrimination against cycling posties.
>>
>>Then why are we continualy told it is a health and safety issue by
>>management?
>
>Because they are idiots who don't know what they are talking about?

Because they're a bunch of mindless jerks who will be first against
the wall come the revolution?

Tim

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Phil Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 21:23:55 +0100, David Hansen wrote:
>
> >>How many of the reckless, "couldn't care less" Royal Mail employees
> >>shown in the pictures were wearing safety helmets?
> >
> >Ah, another "crime".
>
> Actually a "health and safety at work" issue. It's a bit like
> construction workers having to wear safety boots and hard hats.

It's more like construction workers being obliged to wear a nice
carnation in tehir buttonhole.

Postal workers helmets are imposed as uniform requirement - even the
nutty loonies who decided to impose it can't actually manage to
justify it as a health and safety at work requirement.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[JohnB]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Postal workers helmets are imposed as uniform requirement - even the
> nutty loonies who decided to impose it can't actually manage to
> justify it as a health and safety at work requirement.

For the frst time ever I saw a postie in our small town [1] wearing a helmet.
He came out of the PO yard with it perched on top of his bag.
After about 50 yards on the road he pulled up, put it on, crossed the
road and bounced up onto the pavement to continue his journey.

[1} almost a village really

John B