[Closed] Do any of you work in the Health and Safety sector ?

I'll point a mate in the direction of this thread for you.

NEBOSH and a PhD in bothering 😆

Industry type experience is handy as there's nothing worse than an EHS adviser with no knowledge of what they're actually meant to be advising on.

What do you do in the forces?

I'm an engineer in the forces so have a little experience.

So far I've done the risk assessor and managing safely courses.

Looking at doing the general certificate next and then some specific courses like fire safety etc.

Do you look good with HiViz + clipboard ?

In terms of quals, the nebosh general cert then diploma is the most travelled route. It's not cheap and the diploma particularly is not an easy course to pass if you are juggling study with other things in your life.

I've worked in h & s for 12 years (oil industry and FE) and I'm pretty sick of it now tbh. The constant battle to be heard and the default position of being the sole responsible person has been pretty stressful. Have recently moved into Estate management with less h & s responsibility and much prefer it!

Finding a good employer is as important as your qual route imo.

Are you mad?

Mad .... No not at all. Why ?

Do you look good with HiViz + clipboard ?

If we didn't have a Health and Safety inspectorate, you would not have the following at work: defined, safe, working practices with the legal power to prosecute and imprison employers when ignored; the right to have PPE supplied and paid for by your employer; the right to use equipment that's safe, amongst many others.

I actually think it's quite an interesting role and would advise that you take as many courses as you can around the area while you've got the opportunity and someone else paying for it.

People who disparage "elf and safety", are, in general, grade one Daily Mail-reading morons. As are the people who quote "Health and Safety" when they're frightened of being sued but too lazy and/or stupid to do an appropriate risk assessment.

I worked in this area for a number of years managing outdoor adventurous actvities, accommodation, land & building works/maintenance. I went via the NEBOSH general certificate (pretty straightforward) then the Diplomas (harder), IOSH membership etc. with my then employer paying (will the forces cover this as part of the getting ready to leave package whatever it's called?). Enjoyed doing the studying and putting it into practice in the organisation I worked for but I'd echo above, it did still get frustrating after a while and I'm glad it's not the main part of what I do now although of course I do think it is a really important area of work to help protect everyone.

Lots of my ex RE chums went this way and appear to be doing well at it.

http://sota-training.com/

Why don't you move into an Engineering field in the outside world? What kind of engineer, signals, mech, elec?

I have to do an IOSH refresher every 3 years (Project Manger - Engineering/Manufacturing) I quite like it and always find it useful.

Mad .... No not at all. Why ?

You will be, you will be.

I have a mate who does that sort of thing on site, he says that he enjoys that fact that it's dynamic, especially the buzz when instant decisions have to be made.

To do h&s full time you definitely need to be at a company that actually takes h&s seriously. Otherwise you end up working at a company full of employees with allthepies attitude. A man died on Sunday falling through a skylight on the site across from where I work. A good risk assessment and the correct safety measures would have meant he would be spending this Christmas with his family.

One of my clients has a high level statement regarding everyone who works on, or uses their infrastructure: Everyone home safe every day
Seems like a pretty unequivocal sentence to me, but there are always people who think that doesn't apply to them, or others around them.

The military got its knuckles rapped around 20 years ago for poor safety management, and as result it put a lot of personnel through the NEBOSH Certificate and Diploma and raised its game substantially. From what I have seen, a lot of those safety trained forces people have moved into EHS in industry on leaving the military, and seemed to do well and be well regarded for their skills.

Steve/renton - a few suggestions:

1. I suspect you really need the Diploma or equivalent to maximise options and earnings. It used to be that the army would fund personnel doing a post graduate safety diploma at the University of Surrey (which could be extended to an MSc), and which required eight separate weeks of attendance at the university (for which they got time off) plus essays. The advantage of that course was that the diploma was recognised/accredited by IOSH as equivalent to the NEBOSH diploma, and had no exam. Even if Surrey are no longer offering the course, there were/are other providers of similar courses, e.g. Portsmouth University. Suggest you have a look on the careers bit of the [url= http://forum.iosh.co.uk/topics/144-Career-forum ]IOSH forum[/url].

2. As I said, a lot of ex forces people have gained qualifications [u]and[/u] skills/experience in the military and used those to get jobs in civvy street, so you should be trying to speak to some of them to get advice on what you should be doing in the next few years to make yourself highly attractive to the employers in the field(s) you are considering (use your contacts in the army and try posting on the IOSH forum).

3. Many businesses want their Health and Safety managers also to fulfil the Environmental management role (and if you find yourself in a management position where you have to write the Health and Safety policy you will find that there is a lot of overlap with writing an Environmental policy, so it often makes sense for those roles to be combined). So look into getting an Environmental management qualification, although I would suggest that should be secondary to the safety diploma.

4. Ex forces contacts who have gone into industry should be able to give you better advice, but I would expect that skills and experience are potentially as important as the qualifications in getting the employment you want. You want to be able to demonstrate to potential employers that you have acquired experience and used skills in the military that would translate well into their businesses. I am sure that in the RE there are plenty of situations and projects where there are difficult and problematic health, safety and environmental issues which need to be managed properly to achieve a successful outcome. Bear in mind that 'managed properly' for industry and the military will be the same thing: 'cost effectively' and as quickly as (safely) possible - if you can do that in the military, then civilian employers will value that. So you probably need to get yourself in a position while you are still in the forces where you are working full time on EHS.

5. The field is so wide that, even though you want to keep as many options open as possible, you should start thinking about what sectors you might want to get into, e.g. manufacturing, construction etc. etc., and what sort of work you want to do (office based, extent of travelling/remote working etc.)

As slowster said a lot of places roll everything up into HSEQ rolls due to running IMS. Look at getting experience/background in MIS including ISO 14001 and 9001.

If you're looking at a particular industry try and get some background in the relevant legislation (especially environmental).

Thanks for all the really helpful replies.

So I've got 3 years left in the RAF. I'm a weapons engineer by trade but also covered electrics etc.

In my last year I get resettlement with which I can apply for and do various courses, one of them is the nebosh general certificate. However I would prefer to do that now by doing it distance learning and then using my resettlement to do further courses.

I am looking at going the health and safety construction and fire route but would also think about doing some environmental protection courses.

Don't go down the diploma route until you have some experience behind you and to see if you like it first. No one hiring you wlll be looking for a diploma anyway with no experience so a gen cert will see you ok for a starting role for a couple years. It can be a great job if you get in with the right company. You get the opportunity to learn a lot more of what goes on in a company and its satisfying when you reach a position of being able to positively influence people and make a difference.

Its also getting pretty saturated, there are a lot of ex-military people who started with the gen cert working in the industry, you can use this to your advantage I suppose. I have a suspicion that salaries and conditions will start to decline if we go through a period of regulatory change as a result of brexit. More and more companies are looking for all round, Health, Safety, Environmental and Quality people with a good general knowledge of all subjects with a specialism in at least one rather than employ individuals to cover each element. There is a lot of CPD to keep up with all this if you go down that route.

Do you think its still worth doing the fire and construction certificates to go along the gen cert?

Don't go down the diploma route until you have some experience behind you and to see if you like it first. No one hiring you wlll be looking for a diploma anyway with no experience

Agreed.

a gen cert will see you ok for a starting role for a couple years

I would be concerned about relying on the Certificate (especially without other qualifications). I think it probably depends what field and level you are aiming for. For example, it's probably the right level of qualification for a job in building or facilities management, but I would expect that the Diploma would be the benchmark qualification for, say, the position of EHS manager in a factory, especially for a multi-site corporate. Whilst there will be people at that level and higher with just the Certificate, they will probably have been promoted internally, e.g. from the production side, whereas if you are coming in from outside, I think it's more likely that you will need the diploma, especially in a 'saturated' employment market. Ultimately it probably comes down to what your expectations and aspirations are, but I would be concerned that most employers will want someone who is already qualified and competent and can hit the ground running, and that there will be a lot less vacancies for trainee/starter type positions (which will also be worse paid).

I am looking at going the health and safety construction and fire route

Look into the Institution of Fire Engineers qualifications/courses, since they might be more appropriate depending upon what field you are interested in. However, you should be aware that this sector is probably even more heavily saturated with ex-fire fighters. As with the Diploma vs Certificate, more competition will mean employers will cherry pick those with the best qualifications/CVs (and it will also depress salaries).

I'm a weapons engineer by trade but also covered electrics etc.

I imagine that the safety aspects of those roles might translate very well into safety management in some of the high hazard industry sectors, e.g. using 'lock out' and isolation procedures and developing safe systems of work etc.

I don't know what the prospects are for the construction sector in the next 5-10 years, but given the current geo-political climate, the cynic in me thinks that companies in the military sector can look forward to increasing growth and profitibility in the next decade, so given your existing skills and knowledge, you might want to see what sort of skills and qualifications the likes of BAE and Qinetic want for their EHS managers.

The construction and the gen cert are the same level, the gen cert was the original which covered all industries hence the general in the title. The construction cert is basically the same content only it deals with how it is applied in the construction industry. Personally I would just do the gen cert, I've never really seen anyone advertising an entry level role who would ask specifically for the construction one, it may be a slight advantage in construction but a bit of a waste doing them both .

The fire one I haven't came across anyone who has this or is looking for it so cant really comment. I would say that with fire risk assessments and emergency plans, experience and knowledge of the buildings/spaces you are assessing is more relevant when carrying these out than what certificate you have. Unless you want to specialise in a fire safety role, again I wouldn't bother with this at the stage you are at.

I would give serious consideration to doing an 9001 internal auditor course (quality assurance but techniques applicable across all HSEQ subjects)to go along with your gen cert. These 2 courses are relatively short and inexpensive and will give you a good foundation to start with, it would allow you to do internal management system audits as well as safety/site/workplace inspections. As you progress you can then look at further qualifications as your role dictates, although these two combined with a few years experience can see you pretty far and will get you TechIOSH and Practitioner CQI memberships if so desired, which for a lot of small companies will be sufficient for a managers job and in large organisations a decent mid level role.

I work for a construction company - lots of our H&S Managers are ex forces. I think they're all IOSH/NEBOSH.

I work for a construction company - lots of our H&S Managers are ex forces. I think they're all IOSH/NEBOSH

Health and safety costs money, and a lot of companies dont really want to pay for it and take chances, by not having trained management in place or if they where they are made redundant to save cash, a very short sighted attitude as worker safety should be paramount, so jobs may be in decline with ex forces and ex fire staff looking to retrain.

I looked at becoming a fire door inspector, with the www.fdis.co.uk

Ha ha

Home safe everyday

I think the separation of H&S into a separate discipline is wrong. It may be necessary as a temporary measure until the culture has been fixed. Much better is for all disciplines to practice safe working, then safety gets built into what everybody does, not treated as a separate layer to be added on afterwards.

I'd suggest using your engineering skills to do engineering - by all means do the NEBOSH training while you can, it will be useful, but I wouldn't specialise in H&S.

I think the separation of H and S into a separate discipline is wrong.

You might think that, but you would be wrong. It's the same simplistic thinking which leads people to say that health and safety is just common sense. Here's why:

H and S and Environmental management are major disciplines in their own right, requiring significant knowledge of legislation and case law, management systems, and practical aspects of health and safety (everything from the various different methodologies for undertaking a risk assessment; how machinery, substances, human behaviours and working environments can harm people; the various possible control measures to protect against that harm; how to balance the benefit of particular control measures vs. the financial cost of that measure; to how to set up, maintain and enforce safety management systems),

So, for large businesses the safety management function usually needs to be undertaken by dedicated personnel, in the same way that manufacturing businesses will usually split responsibility for operations/production, maintenance, facilities etc. etc.

I would agree that someone with the relevant specialist background in the industry will often be the best person to perform the safety role in a specialist field, e.g. an engineer in an engineering business, a biologist or chemist in a lab etc. (but they will need specialist H and S training). Hence my suggestion to renton to consider whether he could build on his specialist knowledge of weapons systems etc. and get a safety management role in an associated military industry.

It may be necessary as a temporary measure until the culture has been fixed. Much better is for all disciplines to practice safe working, then safety gets built into what everybody does, not treated as a separate layer to be added on afterwards.

Whenever I hear the word 'culture' used in the context of risk management (whether it's safety management or financial risk management in the City), I am suspicious of the person using the phrase and their motives. 'Culture' is a nebulous concept which can be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify and assess. As such, it makes it easier for senior management and directors to disassociate themselves from poor/dangerous practices by those underneath them. Put another way, senior management and directors should have a firm grasp of what happens in their organisations, and be confident that the management systems that have been put in place under their authority are doing their job. So, when the Herald of Free Enterprise sank, the directors should have been in the firing line for not knowing and acting upon the practice of sailing with the bow doors open, rather than a lowly overworked bosun's mate taking all the blame. Similarly in financial services where it became clear that Fred Goodwin et al. did not understand the nature (and the huge risks) of some of the financial instruments their businesses dealt in.

A man died on Sunday falling through a skylight on the site across from where I work. A good risk assessment and the correct safety measures

slowster, I understand your point. There is indeed a role for specialist [u]advisers[/u] on the legalities, case law, etc. The problem is that, too often, H&S is regarded as being the H&S specialist's job, not everybody's duty. As you say, that extends up to the top, as it should have in the Herald of Free Enterprise, etc. When colleagues say to me "that's not a problem because H&S say it's OK", I want to know if [list]they[/list] understand why it's OK, because they have a deeper knowledge of the operation or design than the H&S advisor does.

I used the term "culture" as a concise way of referring to a nebulous concept - but I think you understood what I meant, although your experience of it seems to be the negative usage as "management spin" (which is an increasing problem). Simplistic thinking that recognises and accounts for complexity is good; rejection of ideas based on language can be premature.