Health and Safety Legislation in the University Sector - Essay Example

Health and Safety Legislation in the Sector Introduction Health and safety is a universal issue. Everyday – even just by walking down the street – a person already puts his life at risk. Although accidents are unpredictable, they are nevertheless inevitable. This unpredictability and inevitability had prompted the government to pass on a Health and Safety legislation for all working institutions through the Robens Report in 1972. The University was included in the legislations scope, but the Committee of Vice-Chancellors pleaded for an exemption, asserting that the nature and purpose of work in the academe was wholly different from that of “factories.” However, there are always two sides of the coin no matter how many times you slice it. To better understand whether introducing a Health and Safety legislation in the University Sector was a good or wrong move, this essay aims to present as objectively as possible both the negative and positive points behind such legislation. Disadvantages of a Health and Safety Legislation in Universities Universities do not at all “function like a factory.” Universities claim that they are not “nostalgic for the struggles of the past,” because the commonalities are only limited to politics. For example, as told by The Factory of the Common (2009), the factory was once a “paradigmatic site of struggle between workers and capitalists, so now the university is an [avenue] of conflict, where the ownership of knowledge, the reproduction of the labour force, [and] social and cultural stratifications are all at stake.” However, this is irrelevant to the issue of health and safety. Financial constraints also support the argument that legislation of University Health and Safety measures may have been a bad move. In the process of translating legislation into university policies, “Budget Centres are required to produce their own systems and documentation for implementing this policy locally” (University of Birmingham, 2001). The organizing of such a system is not only time-consuming, but Universities, whether income-generating or reliant on benefactors, will have to make ends meet to implement an undoubtedly costly legislation. They could either employ cost-cutting measures or transfer the financial burden to students, by way of tuition fee increase. This will breed another set of issues. The legislation was also not necessary because according to one scholar, accident statistics for universities illustrate how students generally experience fewer risks than employees “both in terms of the probability of being an accident in the university and also in terms of accident severity.” Hardly any accidents befall students, and they usually tend to be less serious “from the medical point of view” (Bush, 1976, p.1369). Health and Safety legislation will divert Universities’ focus on education. Moreover, there are too many health and safety rules and regulation “that even keeping up with legislative requirements is more onerous than ever before.” Smith said that though it is true that the actual law is simpler, complying with such a law requires information that is too “complicated and extensive” for ordinary folks, much less students, to understand (Smith, n.d., p.4). Advantages of Health and Safety Legislation in Universities If one looks back on the fateful incident in 1966, whereby a National Coal Board (NCB) slag heap swallowed up a South Wales school in Aberfan and killed many children, one could say that introducing a Health and Safety legislation in the University sector was beneficial. The incident was a turning point for the health and safety agenda of the United Kingdom law-making bodies. NCB was blamed for the incident because the casualty was high and a total of 144 people were killed, 116 of which were children. This “accidental” annihilation of a “generation of children” definitely justified the necessity for health and safety legislation in Universities. If it could happen to unknowing schoolchildren, then the probability of such accidents happening to existing and future University students was not far off. All key players – including Universities – had little alternative but to be involved in Robens’ principles and integrate the legislation comprehensively into their respective activities (Dalton, 1998, p.42; British Broadcasting Corporation, 2005). Introducing Health and Safety legislation in Universities was truly a good move because health and safety management is neither “an optional extra, nor a “bolt-on” to existing management activities,” but a broad concept that requires extensive application. Health and safety management systems are more effective if they can be fully incorporated into other management activities. This is now the rationale behind the University Safety Policy legislation, which purports to guarantee that health and safety is provided the same priority as the other vital factors affecting policy initiatives and task completion (University of Nottingham, n.d.). Given the abovementioned points, the assertion that the nature and purpose of work conducted in Universities is fundamentally different from that conducted in a factory is highly debatable. These days, it is impossible to be aware of transformations in the university without associating them to transformations in labor and production. Hence, the term “edu-factory,” an implication that the role of Universities in society is ever-changing. Indeed, society nowadays consider “knowledge [as] a central commodity” purchasable at a certain price (e.g. tuition). This inclination towards commerce consequently means that Universities mainly function as "knowledge and education factories" (Edu-Factory Collective, 2010). What factories and universities have in common is that both can be bought – though the former manufactures tangible and consumable goods, while the latter manufactures knowledge, an intangible product of vague proportions. Moreover, teachers themselves are no different from blue-collar laborers, whose work could be exposed to hazards either because of unexpected events (i.e. Aberfan), or by sheer negligence on their part. Chemistry teachers, for instance, are faced with the risk of laboratory accidents should students improperly mix chemicals and no subsequent safety precautions were pre-arranged. Conclusion High hazard elements coexist with an assorted range of activities and environments across and outside the campus. In view of this, even if University operations are complex, it is important that interactions and interdependence transpire “between individuals, groups and environments.” As Vice-Chancellor Christopher Snowden (as cited in University of Surrey, 2009) said: “Good health and safety practice is supportive of good teaching and research.” Regardless of a Health and Safety legislation, every institution and not just Universities should consider “working and living in a safe manner” (p.3). References British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2005). 1966: Coal tip buries children in Aberfan. BBC News. Retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/ stories/october/21/newsid_2705000/2705335.stm Bush, D. (1976). Health and safety in a university. The British Medical Journal, 2 (6048), 1369-1371. Dalton, A. J. (1998). Safety, health, and environmental hazards at the workplace. London: Redwood Books. Edu-Factory Collective. (2010). To build up a transnational network of struggles and resistance: Within and against the global university. Retrieved from: http://www.edu-factory.org/edu15/ index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=273 Smith, T. (n.d.). Robens revisited: An examination of health and safety law 25 years after the Robens report with particular emphasis on the explosives industry [Data File]. Retrieved from: http://www.eig.org.uk/eig2002/documents/robens.pdf The Factory of the Common. (2009). Global university: Labour, struggles, and the common within the crisis. Retrieved from: http://www.factoryofthecommon.org/global-university University of Birmingham. (2001). Health and safety policy [Data File]. Retrieved from: http://www.ph.bham.ac.uk/safety/universityhealthsafetypolicy.pdf University of Nottingham. (n.d.). Effective safety management: Section 1. Retrieved from: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/safety/esmsect1.htm University of Surrey. (2009). Health and safety policy [Data File]. Retrieved from: http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/HSD/H%26S1_POLICY. PDF Read More