Originally Posted by
AerialPerspective
Then with that clarification, I'd say we agree completely. I too do not think a safety department has to be a monolithic bureau that has to send a team of ninety-seven people to investigate when someone gets a paper cut.
I see exactly where you're coming and I agree - I think we need a safety department for oversight and as a resource for the operational arm, e.g. to investigate things that the ops people don't have time to deal with v.v. errors and avoidance of repetition of incidents.
You are right about 'growth industries', unless something is kept as large as it needs to be, it will grow exponentially and start to diverge from its original purpose.
My problem is I can accept safety, but I can't tolerate HR wankers who have never been of any use in any organisation I've worked for, in fact, their involvement has usually produced crappy results which compare unfavorably to the likely results if they were never there.
Yep, HR, the cancer of every industry