The continuing debate about roving rep trials (or Worker Safety Advisors), which begin in January, has got a bit personal recently between UCATT and the Construction Confederation. Here they both state their cases
For:
George Brumwell, Ucatt

The existing safety representation regulations have failed to ensure that all building workers have a say on health and safety matters.

Although recognition of site-based trade union safety reps is covered by existing regulations, in practice many employers do not recognise trade unions. Sadly, there are still too many rogue employers that do not face up to their responsibilities when it comes to safety representation.

The widespread use of: agency labour; subcontracting; and bogus self-employment has undermined the ability of trade unions to organise a safety representative infrastructure.

There is a familiar pattern on many sites, basic rights are denied and safety representation is discouraged. It is on these sites, where workers are vulnerable and safety standards are poor, that building workers need to be given a voice. Roving safety reps will fill the gaps left by existing legislation.

To be successful roving safety reps must have access to all sites. They will act as a liaison between workers and employers, encouraging dialogue on health and safety issues, and improving site safety.

Trade unions have played a valuable role in making workplaces safe. It has been shown in survey after survey that workplaces with trade union safety reps reduce accident rates by up to 50%. This shows how the industry benefits from forging safety partnerships with responsible trade unions.

The purpose of the HSE pilot is to examine the roving safety rep scheme in practice. A co-operative approach by employers will ensure that answers are provided to the industry's concerns.

It is frustrating that after all the expressions of goodwill that were made at the safety summit that took place in February there is still a block on roving safety reps. It is time that the Construction Confederation had a rethink and rejoined the Workers' Safety Adviser pilot scheme.

Against:
Suzi Nichol, Construction Confederation

There is no one simple answer to improving the construction industry's poor health and safety record, but what is clear is the need for a culture change.

In order to achieve a culture change within construction we must improve the way in which we involve and consult our workforce. We do not believe that in its current format the Workers Safety Advisors pilot scheme will help us towards this change as it raises more questions than answers.

We believe that site-based representatives provide the best way of involving the workforce as they have extensive knowledge of the environment and those working on site and are proven to raise health and safety standards.

In order for WSAs to show that they are a workable alternative to site-based representatives a pilot with a clear means of showing its results is essential.

The proposed pilot scheme has many shortfalls and does not explain how it will measure and meet the objectives it has set itself, namely to assess the effectiveness of WSA's in: raising health and safety standards; promoting greater consultation on health and safety; broadening employers and employees knowledge of health and safety; and cost-benefit terms.

The pilot also fails to address the issues of long-term funding, accountability and control of WSAs. Additionally, as things stand, all of the nominated WSAs in the pilot are trade union nominees, which is not representative of the workforce as a whole.

Health and safety is a priority for the Confederation and we have set ourselves ambitious targets, including reducing the incidence rate of fatal and major injuries amongst our members by 10% year-on-year. We have also devised a consultation toolkit to help make health and safety everyone's responsibility.

We fully support worker consultation, but believe the pilot scheme will not answer the key question of whether the so called 'roving reps' will work towards changing the industry's poor health and safety record.