KEY
STAKEHOLDERS: In the minds of most, the beneficiary of an effective lone worker solution is quite rightly the individual lone worker requiring assistance for whatever reason. They aren’t the sole beneficiary however.
The obvious benefit to the lone worker is that they are potentially removed from an aggressive or dangerous situation. The deployment of a discreet, mobile based system goes beyond that however, it facilitates:
• Not limited to a fixed point of risk, for example, retail risk is not always prevalent at point of sale
• The capture of valuable audio evidence for future use as admissible court evidence
• Audio enables an emergency response e.g. The Police know if they are dealing with a firearms situation and can deploy appropriate tactical resources
• Facilitates monitoring prior to a situation going beyond the control of the lone worker
• Encourages a dynamic risk assessment through regular use
• Ability to discern a situation = less false alarms
Lone Worker Managers can deploy staff with peace of mind that provision is being made and there is a clear process for what should happen in the result of an incident. A fully managed solution (such as SoloProtect) releases a manager to deal with the situations they need to leaving day to day
management and training around a solution to the provider.
The wider organisation also benefits from an effective solution. Staff that feel isolated, unprepared and uncared for are more likely to suffer from stress. Occupational stress is likely to lead to lost productivity, increased rates of sickness, absenteeism, temporary staffing requirements, staff- churn and cases of private litigation– all of which are costs that can seriously erode an organisations’ level of profitability.
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) estimates the costs to society of work related stress to be around £4 billion every year. In 2010/11 male and female workers in the UK took an estimated 4.9 and 5.9 million days off work due to stress respectively.
In-fact, a recent study in U.S. by the Health Promotion and Behaviour doctoral program in the UGA College of Public Health in association with NIOSH claims that a worker’s
perception of safety in the workplace and the work- life balance established by an organisation has a significant effect on the number of injuries at work. The study was conducted across a wide range of sectors and worker types, and their findings state:
• Companies that run in a smooth and effective manner and have minimal constraints on worker performance can decrease injuries by 38% as worker opinions improve.
• A worker’s perception of a positive safety climate can decrease injuries by 32%.
The results are due to be published in full in the March issue of the Journal of Safety Research.
An organisation that is able to demonstrate it is meeting its legal and moral duty of care to staff is removing business risk. Health and Safety legislation (enforced by the HSE in the UK) breaches can result in large fines that can run into six- figures.
In terms of criminal legislation, if a death in the workplace occurs and an organisation is convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007 it can expect a fine potentially in the region of £500,000 or larger. Corporate Manslaughter only relates to an organisation, however personal cases of Gross Negligence Manslaughter against individuals can also run concurrently if deemed in the interest of the Crown.
The Police have clear recommendations of how and when to guarantee a response to a lone worker alarm (as discussed above i.e. ACPO recommendations). Therefore, they are not being burdened by a high number of false alarms or having their valuable resources wasted.
For more information on Connexion2 please visit
www.connexion2.com or e-mail craig.swallow@
connexion2.com
47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
