Are Provident Financial in Bradford breaking health and safety/employment rules in their new building?

[kardashian1]

Can anyone confirm if Provident Financial in Bradford are breaking health and safety rules, reaons being

 

1. A particular manager has point blank refused to allow pedestals for staff to be used in his department, when other managers on other floors have no problem with their staff using pedestals?

 

Surely this is a health and safety matter, pedestals are used by staff if they are sat in front of their pc 9-5 every day to help with their posture.

 

2. This manager does not allow staff to have a break of 5 mins as is the legal requirement if your working with a vdu 8 hours a day.

 

3. No wrist arms rests have been provided to staff

 

4. No screen anti glare screen protectors have been provided

 

When staff work 8am - 6pm - they are only allowed a 1hr break in the whole day, no other breaks are provided.

 

The company has set 'service levels' which are reality designed to make staff work even more harder, more stress

 

5. When staff work on a saturday - they are only paid time and a half, should staff working saturdays be paid double time?

 

many thanks

[SarEl]

Can anyone confirm if Provident Financial in Bradford are breaking health and safety rules, reaons being

 

1. A particular manager has point blank refused to allow pedestals for staff to be used in his department, when other managers on other floors have no problem with their staff using pedestals? There is no requirement. Employers should undertake DSE risk assessments, but an employer doesnot have to provide specific equipment unless a risk assessment says they should (and even then - they don't have to, it is only well advised that they do)

 

Surely this is a health and safety matter, pedestals are used by staff if they are sat in front of their pc 9-5 every day to help with their posture. Lots of staff work 9 - 5 at desks and don't have pedestals.

 

2. This manager does not allow staff to have a break of 5 mins as is the legal requirement if your working with a vdu 8 hours a day. No such legal requirement. The advice is 10 minutes every hour I think - but it is only advice.

 

3. No wrist arms rests have been provided to staff Same as applies to pedestals - the law does not specify equipment that must be provided.

 

4. No screen anti glare screen protectors have been provided Ditto

 

When staff work 8am - 6pm - they are only allowed a 1hr break in the whole day, no other breaks are provided. That's a lot more than the law allows - the law says at least 20 minutes!

 

The company has set 'service levels' which are reality designed to make staff work even more harder, more stress This is legal

 

5. When staff work on a saturday - they are only paid time and a half, should staff working saturdays be paid double time? No. The law does not say that staff have to be paid time and a half or double time. If you are getting time and a half you are lucky - many workers get single time.

 

many thanks

 

At best, you can ask for a DSE assessment of work stations. But the employer isn't doing anything wrong legally here.

[dx100uk]

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/vdubreaks.htm

 

always good

 

dx

[Sidewinder]

Can anyone confirm if Provident Financial in Bradford are breaking health and safety rules, reaons being

 

1. A particular manager has point blank refused to allow pedestals for staff to be used in his department, when other managers on other floors have no problem with their staff using pedestals?

 

Surely this is a health and safety matter, pedestals are used by staff if they are sat in front of their pc 9-5 every day to help with their posture.

 

Already clarified above - what does a risk assessment say. If it recommends pedestals then put in a grievance.

 

2. This manager does not allow staff to have a break of 5 mins as is the legal requirement if your working with a vdu 8 hours a day.

 

There is no legal requirement for a break - only a recommendation that users should have regular short periods of non-VDU activity - filing, answering phones?

 

3. No wrist arms rests have been provided to staff

 

Risk assessment?

 

4. No screen anti glare screen protectors have been provided

 

Risk assessment?

 

When staff work 8am - 6pm - they are only allowed a 1hr break in the whole day, no other breaks are provided.

 

Nothing wrong with that. The legal minimum is a 20 minute unpaid break in a shift of six hours or more. Therefore in a 10 hour shift, workers are actually getting a good deal more than the legal minumum.

 

The company has set 'service levels' which are reality designed to make staff work even more harder, more stress

 

It's a bad old world! Every company will have service levels, some of which may be demanding. It is rare when a company does not want to get the most out of staff, however if stress is affecting the health, then once again this should be addressed by raising the issue woth the employer.

 

5. When staff work on a saturday - they are only paid time and a half, should staff working saturdays be paid double time?

 

No - why? The hourly rate is set by contract. If staff agree then they work for that rate. There is no obligation on the employer to enhance rates of pay - although it is normally reasonable to do so.

 

many thanks

 

The H&S concerns may well be worthy of a grievance, questioning the seemingly different policies in place in different departments. Ask to see the risk assessments and express concern that you are worried about the risk of injury or harm due to the lack of wrist supports (RSI), anti-glare shields and adequate non-screen activity (squinting and other eyesight problems, headaches), and pedestals (back and other musculo-skeletal conditions). The law only requires employers to minimise the risk of harm, so they should be able to demonstrate through risk assessment how the risk is already being addressed.

 

As for pay and breaks, the employer would seem to be meeting their obligations.

[kardashian1]

the new desks and drawers are an utter disgrace far too small and not ergomically designed, in fact the whole desk and drawer arrangement is wrong, no pedestals have been provided when other depts are using them, so right from the word go, one silly manager has decided to have their own set of rules - they said the sense of power make a man mad, how true!

 

'clear desk ploicy' - now you cannot have ANYTHING on your desk when you finish work - not even a pencil - or else you will be reported and the manager will disclipline you, people are taking apart their filing trays in the evening and then rejoining them in the morning and putting them back on their desks, as well as all their other work.

 

provident did not have this policy - last week - when in their old building - so why the need for such a silly stupid decision by the company?????

[kardashian1]

they have people working under tremendous pressure and many staff have been on sick leave with depression with the unwanted stress that manager and acting managers inflict on staff

[SarEl]

the new desks and drawers are an utter disgrace far too small and not ergomically designed, in fact the whole desk and drawer arrangement is wrong, no pedestals have been provided when other depts are using them, so right from the word go, one silly manager has decided to have their own set of rules - they said the sense of power make a man mad, how true!

 

'clear desk ploicy' - now you cannot have ANYTHING on your desk when you finish work - not even a pencil - or else you will be reported and the manager will disclipline you, people are taking apart their filing trays in the evening and then rejoining them in the morning and putting them back on their desks, as well as all their other work.

 

provident did not have this policy - last week - when in their old building - so why the need for such a silly stupid decision by the company?????

 

The desks may be far too small and not ergonomically designed in your opinion but I very much doubt that they break any health and safety regulations since office desks are now designed to meet them. Again, pedestals may be your personal preference, but there are other ways of meeting requirements. And clear desk policies are commonplace in workplaces and there is nothing wrong with having such a policy. If the company have decided on this poliocy, then provided they meet health and safety regulations they may do as they wish.

 

As for managers "inflicting stress" on staff, it will be nigh on impossible to prove such a claim. Many such workplaces are high pressure, and whilst that may be hard, the setting of tatgets and policies is within the purview of the employer and they do not have to drop these simply because you and your colleagues don't like them. I do not wish to be harsh, because I have some sympathy with you, and I know that such working environments can be difficult, but I feel that you need to be aware that complaining is likely to get you the typical response of "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".

 

You aren't likley to get very far with formal grievances about things which are perfectly legal, even if not to your personal preference, and may be better advised to take a "softly softly catchee mousee" approach. If you can pick out one or two issues that you can show have a negative impact on working performance, and have a quiet word suggesting some changes which might improve productivity, you are far more likely to get a positive response.

[sillygirl1]

A 'clear desk' policy sounds stupid at first but it does serve a purpose, particularly when dealing with sensitive information, we have a 'tidy desk' policy where I work and 90% of the desks in the office I am in are shared with night staff, this works both ways and we have very few 'scraps' over ownership of pens, pencils, staplers etc...

 

As for the pedstal issue, if you have an Occupational Health unit and they deem it necessary for you to have one there is 'F' all the manager can do about it.

[DJ2010]

they have people working under tremendous pressure and many staff have been on sick leave with depression with the unwanted stress that manager and acting managers inflict on staff

This manger needs to get some training in dealing with people. People off sick with depression and who pays for sickness leave is it the company or the public by way of SSP.

 

The manager action is counterproductive. Which would be the cheapest for the organization, is it to have employees off sick and not providing a good service, or allowing employee the small items to allow them to work more comfortable during their working day?

If an employer looks after their employees and give them some respect and also be aware of their needs then I would think that they would get more back for the organization in returns. Manager needs to remember that they are dealing with people and hustling them will not be productive the company.

[SarEl]

That may all be true. But it's sense, not law. Many of these employers can get new staff just like that - have a look at the unemployment rates in Bradford (where the OP said they are based) - and the track record of these types of employers, and it is highly unlikely that the employer will care a jot about any of those things. All they will care about is meeting their targets, and anyone who is dead weight (i.e. not meeting targets) will be dealt with either through capability or performance measures. If what the manager is doing adversely impacts on performance and can be shown to do so, then the employer might care about it. Otherwise they probably won't.

[DJ2010]

That may all be true. But it's sense, not law. Many of these employers can get new staff just like that - have a look at the unemployment rates in Bradford (where the OP said they are based) - and the track record of these types of employers, and it is highly unlikely that the employer will care a jot about any of those things. All they will care about is meeting their targets, and anyone who is dead weight (i.e. not meeting targets) will be dealt with either through capability or performance measures. If what the manager is doing adversely impacts on performance and can be shown to do so, then the employer might care about it. Otherwise they probably won't.

 

Hence the saying 'the law is an ass'.

[SarEl]

Hence the saying 'the law is an ass'.

 

The law isn't always right - but how is any of this the laws fault? The law does set down rules for safeguarding employees health and safety, but what we are talking about here is employment practices. Employers are the ones who determine what is and isn't acceptable performance, not the law. If employers do not care about anything other than performance standards, providing they are meeting their legal obligations (which this employer appears to be doing), then whether their employees are happy and like their work / working environment is up to them. I can't say that I personally happen to agree with them, but it is up to them what size desk they order, whether they have a tidy desk policy, or what targets they set. Welcome to a capitalist society.

[kardashian1]

Temperatures in the workplace are covered by the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which place a legal obligation on employers to provide a “reasonable” temperature in the workplace. The Approved Code of Practice suggests a minimum temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius, well the temperature in the new building on some days is below this and the staff have the option to walk out and leave the building if they knew about this

[honeybee13]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Have you looked at the HSE [Health and Safety Executive] website? I believe they have a helpline too. I would be careful about just walking out over a low temperature; I seem to recall that you have to allow a certain amount of time for the building to heat up. Hopefully the HSE can shed some light on this for you.

 

HB

[SarEl]

Agreed. The word "reasonable" is the key here - there is guidance only and that guidance does not have any meaning in law. Nor does either the law ror the guidance say that if the temperature falls below a certain level you have the right to walk out. If you walk out the employer, on the other hand, quite definitely has the right to not pay you and to discipline you. So not quite as clear cut as you believe. In actual fact you would have to show that the temperature was significantly unreasonable. So if it fell a long way short of an "ideal" then the HSE may step in, but in all likelihood they would do nothing other than advise the employer.

[kardashian1]

if the temp is 16c then you are legally entitled to walk out of the building, there is no change at the moment with the airc conditioning, people are wearing scarfs and jackets, whilst the manager has his own temp controlled office nice and warm.

 

the management at provident and 'deputy managers' do not care one iota about these things. All they care about is meeting targets, and anyone who is dead weight ( not meeting targets) will be dealt with either through capability or performance measures.

 

Provident is placing its staff under extreme pressures, they are now measuring the time it takes you to do all your pieces of work in the day and are telling staff for example 'you need to do 50pcs of xyz in 1hour' because we have measured the average - this is just plain wong, many many employees are up in arms about this - more pressure ontop of the pressure they have, 1 particular 'deputy manager' who has been on no training course to become a 'deputy manager' does not have the skill set and simply throws work upon work on your desk, knowing you cannot complete it all in the day and then she makes a big fuss and goes and tells the senior manager that xyz has failed to meet target.....vindictive behaviou....the HR will get involved in this matter very shortly

 

wrists supports have not been provided - so staff who develope rsi can sue the company

 

provident keep a log of how long you spend when you go to the toilet and tell you that your taking too long, for christs sake! - its no wonder that even 2 directors have just recently been made redundant and the companies shares are fast falling down in price as investors are starting to sell up

 

provident despite all the gloss and fancy web site is not a good employer at all - they make you work like slaves under very extreme pressures

 

If what the manager is doing adversely impacts on performance and can be shown to do so, then the employer might care about it. Otherwise they probably won't.

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

Where does it state that you can walk out when it's 16 degrees please? It doesn't sound great to me, but as SarEl and I said, it's not cut and dried. Unless you know something we don't. SarEl is in the legal profession btw and I myself wouldn't argue with her in a hurry .

 

I don't know if we've asked before, but do you guys have a union? If I worked there and didn't want to leave, I'd be joining one and trying to get all my colleagues to, so you might have some sort of bargaining power.

 

HB

[SarEl]

Well. If you are legally entitled to walk out if the temperature is below 16 degrees I suggest you solve all your problems by doing it - and see what happens. I can tell you that a disciplinary is likely and a dismissal is certainly not impossible - but it will solve all your problems with the employer because you won't have one.

 

Look, it isn't that you'll find anyone here saying that they sound like great employers or queuing for a job there - but deplorable though these things are, they are not unheard of and so far you have actually not come up with anything at all illegal. They can set performance targets, even impossible ones. They can have small desks. They can have clear desk policies. They can even time your breaks or their frequnecy. No it isn't nice management, and maybe it isn't good management - but it's legal management. So you are dead right - the only thing that matters is whether it impacts on performance. So as I said before - show that it does.

[Sidewinder]

There is certainly no legal entitlement to walk out if the temperature is less than 16 degrees - you are on a hiding to nothing with that one. What the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 state is that employers must provide a 'reasonable' temperature during working hours. The Code of Practice (note - not law) recommends that this should be a comfortable without the need for 'special' clothing and suggests a minimum of 16 degrees. 'Comfortable' however is not just a measurement of temperature, as what may be acceptable for one person may not be for another and depends on air movement, individual metabolic rate, movement, relative humidity and other factors. The temperature of 16 degrees is considered a suitable base above which individuals may be able to add (or remove) layers of clothing in order to maintain personal 'thermal comfort'

 

In essence - if the office is too cold for your personal thermal comfort, wear a vest, thicker shirt, light jumper etc, then remove layers as necessary to preserve your own thermal environment.

 

I daresay that if the thermostat were turned up to 20 degrees, some would complain of being warm, and what matters to an employer when determining office temperature is not just the economic cost of additional heating, but the optimal work rate for the staff - warmer environments have a tendency to reduce output (I know the opposite can also be true for some, but to a much lesser extent).

 

The only thing that you can do is to demonstrate that the temperature is 'unreasonable'. The test for that is whether 80% or above of the staff do not find it comfortable. If that is the case, then get that 80% to lodge a grievance and if it is not dealt with then contact the local Environmental Health and ask for a workplace assessment.

 

I couldn't agree more with SarEl on this. They may be the worst employer that you have encountered, but they are (apparently) acting within the law. They are also running a business, and it may be necessary to optimise the work rate of every member of staff to the point that YOU find it unreasonable based on your opinion. That is the nature of business, and companies do, believe it or not, exist to make as much money as possible. It is then down to the staff to either stay or go as they wish. It may not be morally right, but is IS legally acceptable, and sadly getting more and more common.

[DJ2010]

Do the company employ any disabled people (if not, they will soon have their existing employees disable by their action towards them). Do any of the employees suffer from arthritis, if so then the cold temperature would be put them at disadvantage if they were not able to keep their targets up if their condition falls within the DDA.

As for staying too long in the loo this can be cause by constipation or some other bowl condition that required people to stay in the loo that bit longer, which can also be cause by anxiety. If a manager come up to an employee and asks what kept them so long in the loo they can say any of the above condition was the reason. Also the employee should say to the manager sorry about been there too long, but if you do not believe me then you are welcome to come stand outside the loo door while I am in there. Also say that they have flushed the evidence down the loo, but if they want evidence the next time this can be provided for them if they leave rubber gloves and a plastic container in the loo and it will brought back to them in the container, that should shut them up!!

This type of thing use to go on in the 80’s and was so counterproductive have these manager not learned anything