Chris, Kate and Everybody
What an interesting debate and I do agree with everything that Chris says.
Just a quick story - in 1985 at a (government) organisation that I managed
the nurse left and I tried very hard to persuade the organisation that they
did not need a treatment nurse on site all the time. They refused saying
that when a tank turned over the nurse in her blue dress and frilly white
hat instilled confidence in the injured people. Unfortunately the male nurse
I put in the post refused point blank to wear said blue dress and frilly
white hat!!!!!!!!! Oh! and as for the story about the car servicing Chris my
business man husband only gets his cars serviced once they are old enough to
require MOTs or because the warrantee is only valid if serviced. he knows it
makes sense but won't spend the money. In fact he would not spend anything
on H & S or OH if his wife did not give the OH advice free to the company
(generally in exchange for use of the car!).

I cannot comment about Scandinavian countries except that I do know that
their populations are very small - Norway for example has a population of
only about 3 million and I feel we can only compare like with like. the
comment WE NEED A CULTURE CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT'S UNDERSTANDING  AND ATTITUDE
TO OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH- I believe it is not just MANAGEMENT I believe it is
our own professions too - other medical and nursing specialism do not
appreciate what OH is about and therefore it does not get promoted by the
Doctors and nurses in senior positions and the government - I bet what Sarah
Mullaney knows about OH could be written on the back of a postage stamp -
what do you think about the DOH doctors Kate?

In my opinion WE NEED A CULTURE CHANGE IN EVERYBODYS UNDERSTANDING  AND
ATTITUDE TO OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH!

Greta


----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Packham <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:11 PM
Subject: Occupational health and its role


> Kate
>
> Whilst I agree with much of what you say, there are one or two points
where
> I do not entirely share your opinion.
>
> Yes, legislation certainly has a role to play, but on its own cannot
achieve
> the standards that we aspire to. Furthermore, legislation is not necessary
> to achieve acceptance of a particular practice. There is no legislation
that
> says I have to take my car in every 10,000 miles for service. I do it
> because I accept that it makes good sense so to do!  (It's a culture
thing!)
>
> I must also take issue with you that people who run businesses know that
OH
> is a good thing. Some do, but there are many who consider it an
unnecessary
> expense and to merely add to the cost of running their operation without
any
> real benefits. It was not so long ago that a manager commented to me that
> his company no longer had a real nurse. I knew that the new one was well
> qualified so asked why he made that statement, only to get the reply that
> "the old one wore a uniform"! Incidentally, this was a senior manager in a
> large organisation. I spend a great deal of time both selling our services
> and dealing with managers in their workplaces. OH is not seen by many in
the
> positive light you suggest.
>
> Preventative maintenance on plant, machinery and vehicles is not generally
> seen as "peripheral" to the main business. (Coming from the machine tool
> industry I can speak from experience here.) Why should "people
maintenance"
> not be accorded the same status?
>
> Good employers have already sussed out that people maintenance makes good
> commercial sense. They did not need legislation to take action to protect
> the health of  their employees. Legislation, as far as it can go, will
only
> drag people along unwillingly and see them do the minimum necessary to
avoid
> ending up in court. WE NEED A CULTURE CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT'S UNDERSTANDING
> AND ATTITUDE TO OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH.  Obviously this will not happen
> overnight, but we need to start "marketing" occupational health to
employers
> in a way that they comprehend.
>
> Incidentally, my experience in Scandinavia suggests that much of the
> occupational health service there is a "treatment when you are ill and
> regular medical check-up" service and not the proactive, workplace-based
> preventative approach that is what we really need. Speaking to some of the
> (smaller) employers there they see the OH service as something they must
> subscribe to, useful when someone is ill but not really impinging
otherwise
> on how they operate. I'm not sure that this is what we should be aspiring
> to.
>
> Regards
> Chris Packham
>
> EnviroDerm Services
> Solutions in skin management
> For information on skin management, technical bulletins and information
> about our support services visit our website (www.enviroderm.co.uk)
> For immediate help e-mail us at [log in to unmask] or phone on +44 1386
> 832 311