what's the difference between an accident and incident

[wolfie citizen smith]

Wolfie--Managers are already trying to absolve themselves, and lay the 'blame' of 'accidents 'incidents' at the posties feet! Again. I'd like to ask you how Managers are only now seemingly giving the Regular Postie the 'choice' of wether they work in these coditions or not--pound to a penny, if an accident occurs, then the Boss will come back with a ''Well, you had a choice' etc--maybe TBT could organise a poll to find out how many posties have had accidents or incidents so far in this weather, and what the response has been from Management.
And, yes, I am suggesting Management will use the 'we gave you a choice' etc, and they will use that as a cop out should an accident occur!

This is my point 'stokes' as it was happening last week, managers were instructing us posties to decide yes go out or no don't go out or only take out part delivery which is accessable. Job and Finish.....................even though those who decided to not go out which was only a handfull had to work untill there finish time within the DO. So therefore you can imagine the uptake on part delivery, job 'n' finish
your suggested poll would be interesting but pointless i feel as I believe no claims was forthcoming within our DO last week

[stokes11eg]

Yes, but did you clarify with your Boss what happens if you have an accident if you go out on a 'voluntary' basis?

[brothermagrew]

A hot debate on the subject in 2006 was covered on Accident v Incident worthwhile giving it a read as they are split.

http://www.safetyxchange.org/health-saf ... incident-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wolfie citizen smith]

A hot debate on the subject in 2006 was covered on Accident v Incident worthwhile giving it a read as they are split.

http://www.safetyxchange.org/health-saf ... incident-2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You should read this stokes as it states just as I suggeted in the first place. Management used to call all accidents 'accidents' until some bright spark within the AMC thought it a good idea to call all accidents 'incidents' because the ownus has now been taken away form Royal Mail and until the incident is fully investigated and in a majority of cases one suspects litigation which could take well over the 12 month period for stage warnings, therefore management can now give 'attentdance warnings' for those individuals who had time away from work due to there 'incidents'. A sneeky bastard move i know but just remember 'Up there for thinking, Down there for dancing' Hopefully this all makes sence and be lucky

Thank you 'magrew' for the info

[stokes11eg]

Yes, but this comes from across the pond! Some words have no hard and definate meaning and allow all the wafflers to waffle forth! Strangely, if you replace both words with accidental, and incidental, they have roughly the same meaning. But back to Britain and why Royal Mail have started to record incidents instead of accidents. Following the American lead, it's a total cop out! They want to ensure the blame for any accident lies solely with the 'injured' party. And hence no payouts!
Replace both those words with 'avoidable' or unavoildable' and intentional' and 'unintentional---and 'deliberate'--(what insurance companies do) ---in using the word incident, R/M are not only implying the 'event' was avoidable--but in causing it to happen ,was in some way deliberate!
And that's where they are , in my opinion snookered for the moment.. In this country at least, Insurers still take the view that very few people would set out to deliberatly throw themselves down icy steps in the course of delivering mail etc.
Ultimately despite all the waffle, R/M are responsible for your well being during working hours, and no amount of splitting hairs over two words should detract from that!
We are in a job with a reasonable amout of risk attached to it, and I have a sneaky suspicion that around 4/5 years ago, when this word first started being used, R/M either switched to cheaper insurance. or had orders from their normal company to reduce payouts.!

[wolfie citizen smith]

i believe stokes that we are both intelligent individuals who are on the same page however interpreting in a various way but both coming up with the same answer.

[fishtank]

It is nothing to do with stage warnings,
It is as stokes pointed out...all about Employer’s Liability policy...no accident...no blame attributed to Royal Mail.
No blame....No claim....that simple.

[stokes11eg]

WHo are you calling intelligent! Not me I hope! but yes, we're on the same page! But, no attendance warning should be given until AFTER an investigation has proved in as much as it can be proved, that the individual was responsible.

[wolfie citizen smith]

what you on about 'tank' of course its to do with stage warnings because an accident on duty always counted in your favor, now an incident on duty could now count against you untill the legal side of things have been finallised, therefore you could find yourself out the door if you had 3 or more incidents that resulted in time off.

[fishtank]

what you on about 'tank' of course its to do with stage warnings because an accident on duty always counted in your favor, now an incident on duty could now count against you untill the legal side of things have been finallised, therefore you could find yourself out the door if you had 3 or more incidents that resulted in time off.

No it didn't Wolfie.
The attendance procedure states that they will "normally" be discounted but if you are found to be at fault and caused the accident yourself then they won't be.
It has always been the case that AOD's CAN and HAVE been counted in the attendance procedure.

The very same criteria is used for "incidents"....although it would seem that some reps are allowing management to do whatever they please.

[wolfie citizen smith]

what you on about 'tank' of course its to do with stage warnings because an accident on duty always counted in your favor, now an incident on duty could now count against you untill the legal side of things have been finallised, therefore you could find yourself out the door if you had 3 or more incidents that resulted in time off.

No it didn't Wolfie.
The attendance procedure states that they will "normally" be discounted but if you are found to be at fault and caused the accident yourself then they won't be.
It has always been the case that AOD's CAN and HAVE been counted in the attendance procedure.

The very same criteria is used for "incidents"....although it would seem that some reps are allowing management to do whatever they please.

Again not sure where your coming from 'tank' as all my accidents on duty and others I have represented in the past have counted in there favor, because an accident as i have previously said points blame and fortunately i have had the fortune to exploit the fact that our glourious employer was always to blame for the accident that had occoured. Unfortunately the new ERICA system being used by our employer now suggests that all accidents are now incidents which does not point blame untill it is finallised in a court of law if it goes that far, until then management can and will expoit this oppertunity to give the indivdual employee a stage warning as our employer has been 'i believe' by the AMC that individual cases via the litigation process can and will take over 12 months which as you are aware is the length of time a stage warning stays on your record therefore i have previously presented this in a rational way

[brothermagrew]

May I point out this previous posting.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 97#p311797" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;