Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
place, and if so, for them to include all staff?

The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff are split
into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest remain at
work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking part, and those
not taking part are also warned in advance so that they can ignore the
alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to be deskbound have a
DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill is carried out a few
days later to ensure that everyone participates.

Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?

What if the alarm goes off for a real fire, who chooses who stays behind to 
burn?!!!

I would ask you rlocal Fire Brigade about this one, sounds a bit dodgy.



 wrote in message 
news:1135968753.902319.143710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
> place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
>
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
> be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
> facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff are split
> into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest remain at
> work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking part, and those
> not taking part are also warned in advance so that they can ignore the
> alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to be deskbound have a
> DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill is carried out a few
> days later to ensure that everyone participates.
>
> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
>

stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:

> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to
> take place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
> 
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones
> should be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call
> centre facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff
> are split into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest
> remain at work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking
> part, and those not taking part are also warned in advance so that
> they can ignore the alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to
> be deskbound have a DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill
> is carried out a few days later to ensure that everyone participates.
> 
> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?

No they are not. It is quite refreshing to hear of other organisations
who carry out drills regularly.
On a lot of ours, we have a drill that only includes the wardens and
the roll callers and fire  panel monitor. We do the full monty drill
every few month, but it would be acceptable to split the workforce to
allow everyone to participate.

stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:

> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to
> take place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
> 
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones
> should be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call
> centre facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff
> are split into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest
> remain at work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking
> part, and those not taking part are also warned in advance so that
> they can ignore the alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to
> be deskbound have a DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill
> is carried out a few days later to ensure that everyone participates.
> 
> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?

A company not having a contigence plan sounds like a company that wil
go to the wall soon.

 
--
zaax

stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
> place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
> 
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
> be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
> facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff are split
> into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest remain at
> work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking part, and those
> not taking part are also warned in advance so that they can ignore the
> alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to be deskbound have a
> DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill is carried out a few
> days later to ensure that everyone participates.
> 
> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
> 
On the contrary, they are doing the right thing by both complying with 
current legislation AND ensuring customers will be dealt with as well!

stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to
> take place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
>
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones
> should be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call
> centre facilities. In the event of a fire drill, call centre staff
> are split into two groups - half participate in the drill, the rest
> remain at work - fire marshals are told in advance who is taking
> part, and those not taking part are also warned in advance so that
> they can ignore the alarm.  Critical support staff who do not need to
> be deskbound have a DECT phone and evacuate as normal. A second drill
> is carried out a few days later to ensure that everyone participates.
>
> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?

What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must evacuate
then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are un-manned?.....

Fat Sam wrote:

> > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
> 
> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
> un-manned?.....

What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
Use a bit of common.

"joe"  wrote in message 
news:41lselF1fcijeU1@individual.net...
Fat Sam wrote:

> > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
>
> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
> un-manned?.....

What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
Use a bit of common.

How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the know, and 
don't get up to leave?

Hardly testing peoples responses?

**SS**

> "joe"  wrote in message
> news:41lselF1fcijeU1@individual.net...
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
>> > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
>>
>> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
>> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
>> un-manned?.....
>
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.
>
> How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the know, 
> and
> don't get up to leave?
>
> Hardly testing peoples responses?
>
> **SS**

Where I work we've never evacuated in the three years I've been there. All 
the other floors & buildings do for the drills, but we watch the flashing 
evacuation light and keep working. If there was a fire we'd be the last to 
go. When I first started they showed us the way out in case of evacuation. 
That's it.

Personally I would have thought a split evacuation practice would be a good 
idea. I may even suggest it to management. Some staff have been there for 10 
years and have never had a drill. Like the original poster we can pretty 
much never leave the centre unmanned. Unless we are being directly 
threatened by a potentially lethal incident.

Zip
CFA Volunteer
Melbourne, Australia

secret squiddle wrote:
> "joe"  wrote in message
> news:41lselF1fcijeU1@individual.net...
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
> > > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
> >
> > What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
> > evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
> > un-manned?.....
>
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.
>
> How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the know, and
> don't get up to leave?
>
> Hardly testing peoples responses?
>
> **SS**

A drill is not to test responses - ie how fast they can run out. It is
to ensure that everyone knows what to do in the event of a fire.

dg

joe wrote:
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
>>> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
>>
>> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
>> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
>> un-manned?.....
>
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.

I did.
Obviously you didn't.
The OP said :-
"The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
facilities."

So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup callcentre
for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7, they are going to be
left with un-manned phone lines during a real fire alarm.....
If this is the case, it's quite obvious to me that the time-sensitive nature
of their calls and the 24-7 availability isn't quite as important as the
company are suggesting.....
So therefore, why the need for staggered drills?....

It's a perfectly logical and reasoned argument.....

On 30 Dec 2005 22:59:33 GMT, joe wrote:

> Fat Sam wrote:
> 
>>> Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this way?
>> 
>> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
>> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
>> un-manned?.....
> 
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.

However just send half out won't be a good way of checking if the exits and
stairwells can actually cope with full volumes, unless you sneakily shut
half of them off first of course

"secret squiddle"  wrote in
news:43b5be2f$0$23291$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk: 

> 
> "joe"  wrote in message 
> news:41lselF1fcijeU1@individual.net...
> Fat Sam wrote:
> 
>> > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this
>> > way? 
>>
>> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
>> evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
>> un-manned?.....
> 
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.
> 
> How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the
> know, and don't get up to leave?
> 
> Hardly testing peoples responses?
> 
> **SS** 

It's an interesting one, isn't it?

It's a bit like my place of work where the guy who organises the drill
also happens to be the guy responsible for getting the register to the
assembly point. Amazingly, he has a wonderful record! 



Martin.

"dg"  wrote in
news:1135987752.861980.214780@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: 

> 
> secret squiddle wrote:
>> "joe"  wrote in message
>> news:41lselF1fcijeU1@individual.net...
>> Fat Sam wrote:
>>
>> > > Is the company likely to hit any legal problems working in this
>> > > way? 
>> >
>> > What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
>> > evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
>> > un-manned?.....
>>
>> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
>> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
>> Use a bit of common.
>>
>> How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the
>> know, and don't get up to leave?
>>
>> Hardly testing peoples responses?
>>
>> **SS**
> 
> A drill is not to test responses - ie how fast they can run out. It is
> to ensure that everyone knows what to do in the event of a fire.
> 
> dg
> 
> 

It's also to test how long it takes to determine if everyone is out of
the building...

stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:
> The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
> be manned 24/7.

If they're so time-sensitive, won't half the staff being missing mean
some callers will be on hold? If not, are they really needed?

"Fat Sam"  wrote in message 
news:x7ktf.2922$yu.2268@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> The OP said :-
> "The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
> be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
> facilities."
>
> So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup 
> callcentre
> for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7, they are going to be
> left with un-manned phone lines during a real fire alarm.....

I think the key word here is "under normal circumstances". I would classify 
the call centre burning down as normal circumstances!

"Chris Street"  wrote in message 
news:curwx3ego05s.1x9qkcs2m3oe5$.dlg@40tude.net...
> However just send half out won't be a good way of checking if the exits 
> and
> stairwells can actually cope with full volumes, unless you sneakily shut
> half of them off first of course

I don't think fire routes and fire exits are designed by testing and 
measuring the staff leaving a building. There are strict building 
regulations which the fire bridgade sticks to when they inspect a building 
(e.g. number of exits, width of gangways etc depending on building size 
etc). This is way all fire routes exits must be kept cleared regardless of 
how many people are working in a room.

Fat Sam wrote:

>
> What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must evacuate
> then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are un-manned?.....

The reason for only forewarning the fire marshals and those NOT
involved in the drill is to ensure that _everyone_ should consider a
fire alarm real - and therefore evacuate - unless they've been warned
about it. Even if they have been warned, an alarm that doesn't stop
within 5 seconds should be considered real - because it's a call centre
environment, we do not have a continuous alarm for drills.

Also, fire marshals will occasionally take it upon themselves to spring
a surprise on everyone during the evacuation, by choosing a random exit
to be considered blocked by the fire. At one point, the person carrying
the occupancy register opted to barge through the fire marshal blocking
the nearest fire exit to him. He was declared 'dead' at the scene,
despite his protests that it was merely a minor burn, the result of
which was that we now have an offsite printer hosted by the security
company controlling the park, which prints a second occupancy register
based on who the door access controls say is in the building.

halfanorange wrote:

> stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:
> > The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> > time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
> > be manned 24/7.
>
> If they're so time-sensitive, won't half the staff being missing mean
> some callers will be on hold? If not, are they really needed?

Possibly. However, we have predictable peaks of busy time, so it's easy
enough to schedule the drill for minimum impact. The drills are
generally scheduled for a 'quiet' spot on our busiest day, meaning we
have virtually all staff onsite, but we can get by without them.

On 30 Dec 2005 10:52:34 -0800, stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:

>Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
>place, and if so, for them to include all staff?

In our company there are certain people that are nominated to stay
behind during fire drills and these people are taken on a separate
fire drill at a different time.

secret squiddle wrote:

> > What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must
> > evacuate then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are
> > un-manned?.....
> 
> What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> Use a bit of common.
> 
> How do they do an unannounced drill if half the people are in the
> know, and don't get up to leave?
> 
> Hardly testing peoples responses?

It is a drill not a test, the more times someone does something, the
smoother they get at it, you do not need to have totally unnanounced
drills, as often as announced drills, the need to have uninterupted
service is enough to negate the need for unnanounced testing. They
could always tell a few to keep working and evacuate the remainder.

Fat Sam wrote:

> > What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
> > there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
> > Use a bit of common.
> 
> I did.
> Obviously you didn't.
> The OP said :-
> "The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones
> should be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call
> centre facilities."
> 
> So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup
> callcentre for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7, they
> are going to be left with un-manned phone lines during a real fire
> alarm.....  If this is the case, it's quite obvious to me that the
> time-sensitive nature of their calls and the 24-7 availability isn't
> quite as important as the company are suggesting.....
> So therefore, why the need for staggered drills?....
> 
> It's a perfectly logical and reasoned argument.....

Well not really, in the case of an emergency it is quite obvious that
the centre will be unmanned, as fire drills are not an emergency there
is no need to take emergency procedures.
The importance is not an issue, because having the ability to stagger
the drills means the company is going to use that method in preference
to getting everyone out, as I said previously a bit of common would
have given the answer. Just in case, I will repost

"meaning under normal circumstances, phones
> should be manned 24/7."

TimB wrote:
> At one point, the
> person carrying the occupancy register opted to barge through the
> fire marshal blocking the nearest fire exit to him. He was declared
> 'dead' at the scene, despite his protests that it was merely a minor
> burn,

Excellent. :0)

-- 
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Martin Milan  writes:

> It's also to test how long it takes to determine if everyone is out of
> the building... 

Which is why I think that companies should occasionally hold fire
drills during "non-core" time, such as 5mins before the official start
of work or in the lunch period. This would test the systems which
determine who is in and who is out of the building.

Graham Murray wrote:

> Martin Milan  writes:
> 
> > It's also to test how long it takes to determine if everyone is out
> > of the building... 
> 
> Which is why I think that companies should occasionally hold fire
> drills during "non-core" time, such as 5mins before the official start
> of work or in the lunch period. This would test the systems which
> determine who is in and who is out of the building.

I would love that, unfortunately the employees only allow tests to be
carried out in employers time, not their own. After bell time, that is
it, finito fire or not, everyone, thataway---->

Graham Murray  wrote in
news:87hd8pza9d.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk: 

> Martin Milan  writes:
> 
>> It's also to test how long it takes to determine if everyone is out
>> of the building... 
> 
> Which is why I think that companies should occasionally hold fire
> drills during "non-core" time, such as 5mins before the official start
> of work or in the lunch period. This would test the systems which
> determine who is in and who is out of the building.
> 

Oh I entirely agree... I also think the people who schedule fire drills
ought not to be the people who are involved in them. What we need at our
place is for a director to simply decide to smash and alarm on his way
in one day... 

Martin.

"joe"  wrote in message 
news:41ngs4F1fgqbtU1@individual.net...
> Graham Murray wrote:
>
>> Martin Milan  writes:
>>
>> > It's also to test how long it takes to determine if everyone is out
>> > of the building...
>>
>> Which is why I think that companies should occasionally hold fire
>> drills during "non-core" time, such as 5mins before the official start
>> of work or in the lunch period. This would test the systems which
>> determine who is in and who is out of the building.
>
> I would love that, unfortunately the employees only allow tests to be
> carried out in employers time, not their own. After bell time, that is
> it, finito fire or not, everyone, thataway---->

I am reminded of a time, some years ago, when a building in america was 
being evacuated for a fire drill and it took something like five minutes, 
when the officials were congratulating themselves on the success of the 
operation, the bell went to finish work and the building was emptied in two 
minutes!

Alan

Alan Holmes wrote:

> I am reminded of a time, some years ago, when a building in america
> was being evacuated for a fire drill and it took something like five
> minutes, when the officials were congratulating themselves on the
> success of the operation, the bell went to finish work and the
> building was emptied in two minutes!

That is nice, believable as well.

A newly appointed safety officer at our local authority decided to do a 
completely unannounced fire drill.  In the building is a warbling siren, no 
bells - half the staff did not know what it was having never heard the alarm 
before (it was always tested each week before staff arrived) and when 
prompted by the other half that did realise it was the fire alarm eventually 
walked out.

We all got to the rally point which was dangerously near to the building - 
about 15 meters away - and the safety officer asked the receptionist if the 
fire brigade had been called - guess what - she had NOT called the FB and 
did NOT realise it was her responsibility despite having worked there for 
some 15 years.

A second drill the next week went perfectly!



-- 
Regards


David J. Button
"Dave the exTrailer"  wrote in message 
news:fgkcr11jl59ijamakni2fhstkm63c17dv6@4ax.com...
> On 30 Dec 2005 10:52:34 -0800, stokefolk@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
>>place, and if so, for them to include all staff?
>
> In our company there are certain people that are nominated to stay
> behind during fire drills and these people are taken on a separate
> fire drill at a different time.

wrote in message 
news:1135968753.902319.143710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know if there's a legal requirement for fire drills to take
> place, and if so, for them to include all staff?

The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (as amended) require 
almost all businesses to carry out a fire risk assessment and to ensure that 
staff are informed and trained in accordance with the conclusions reached in 
that risk assessment. There is no specific requirement for fire drills, as, 
like most Health and Safety regulations, they are drafted to meet a wide 
range of needs and it is left to the risk assessor to decide what is 
appropriate in individual circumstances.

Colin Bignell

"joe"  wrote in message 
news:41n4sfF1f707lU1@individual.net...
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
>> > What do you think? Everyone will evacuate, when carrying out a test,
>> > there is absolutely no need for everyone to evacuate at once.
>> > Use a bit of common.
>>
>> I did.
>> Obviously you didn't.
>> The OP said :-
>> "The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
>> time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones
>> should be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call
>> centre facilities."
>>
>> So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup
>> callcentre for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7, they
>> are going to be left with un-manned phone lines during a real fire
>> alarm.....  If this is the case, it's quite obvious to me that the
>> time-sensitive nature of their calls and the 24-7 availability isn't
>> quite as important as the company are suggesting.....
>> So therefore, why the need for staggered drills?....
>>
>> It's a perfectly logical and reasoned argument.....
>
> Well not really, in the case of an emergency it is quite obvious that
> the centre will be unmanned, as fire drills are not an emergency there
> is no need to take emergency procedures.

Except that one of the purposes of a fire drill is to test whether the 
emergency procedures work. I used to be chief fire officer for a large 
Victorian building that housed several hundred people. Our fire drills  were 
coordinated with the local fire brigade as they would also use them as a 
training exercise, with a full call-out and a building search. I don't 
recall a drill where we did not discover something that could be improved. 
If you are evacuating only half the people (particularly if they can see the 
others are staying put) you are not properly testing the evacuation 
procedures.

Colin Bignell

nightjar wrote:

> > Well not really, in the case of an emergency it is quite obvious
> > that the centre will be unmanned, as fire drills are not an
> > emergency there is no need to take emergency procedures.
> 
> Except that one of the purposes of a fire drill is to test whether
> the emergency procedures work. I used to be chief fire officer for a
> large Victorian building that housed several hundred people. Our fire
> drills  were coordinated with the local fire brigade as they would
> also use them as a training exercise, with a full call-out and a
> building search. I don't recall a drill where we did not discover
> something that could be improved. If you are evacuating only half the
> people (particularly if they can see the others are staying put) you
> are not properly testing the evacuation procedures.

The question in point was the legal aspect. After a risk assessment of
fire, steps may be taken to reduce the risk.
For your points, they are perfectly correct, we often have drills and
not one goes by without suggestions for improvements, not that there
are faults. We use the bells to evacuate, while evacuation takes place,
a monitor goes to a main fire control panel, which is equiped with
radio.
As soon as the alarm goes, fire wardens go to their nearest handheld
radio (kept in various places) and logs in with the panel, they then go
on a search for the section the radio was in. All of the fire wardens
are trained by the fire brigade, and search for people left in the
building. As soon as the fire panel person is in position, they will
radio saying exactly where the fire is indicated. The fire wardens
continue to look for stragglers and when finished, they go to the fire
panel and are ticked off the list and sent outside incase they are
needed again. All wardens are in contact and the panel warden knows
axactly where they are. When the fire brigade get their, they know
whether anyone is inside the building and the exact nature of the alarm.
A register of everyone on site is printed automatically on the alarm
going off for 8 seconds in the wages, it also prints a copy in the
security gatehouse where everyon congregates to be counted by
designated roll callers.
It seems to work very well, but as I say, everything can be improved,
but after a time, the cost outweighs the benefit.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:32:54 GMT, "Fat Sam"
 wrote:

>What happens in the event of a real fire?.....Surely everyone must evacuate
>then?.....Doesn't that mean that all phones are un-manned?.....

Yes, real fires tend to adversely affect just about *all* businesses.
As opposed to fire *drills* which should be organised so that they do
*not* adversely affect the business.

-- 
Cynic

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:18:37 GMT, "Fat Sam"
 wrote:

>"The company I work for operates a call centre taking very
>time-sensitive calls, meaning under normal circumstances, phones should
>be manned 24/7. We only have one site, so no redundant call centre
>facilities."

>So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup callcentre
>for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7, they are going to be
>left with un-manned phone lines during a real fire alarm.....
>If this is the case, it's quite obvious to me that the time-sensitive nature
>of their calls and the 24-7 availability isn't quite as important as the
>company are suggesting.....
>So therefore, why the need for staggered drills?....
>
>It's a perfectly logical and reasoned argument.....

Would you consider driving your car into a ditch (and probably writing
it off) in order to practice swerving to avoid an obsticle?  Would you
consider driving your car into a ditch in a real emergency if the
alternative was to run over a pedestrian?

Hopefully the answers will enlighten you to the fact that the degree
to which a large loss is acceptable depends upon how bad the
alternative is.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:

> > So if the company haven't taken the precaution of having a backup
> > callcentre for time-sensitive calls that need to be taken 24-7,
> > they are going to be left with un-manned phone lines during a real
> > fire alarm.....  If this is the case, it's quite obvious to me that
> > the time-sensitive nature of their calls and the 24-7 availability
> > isn't quite as important as the company are suggesting.....
> > So therefore, why the need for staggered drills?....
> > 
> > It's a perfectly logical and reasoned argument.....
> 
> Would you consider driving your car into a ditch (and probably writing
> it off) in order to practice swerving to avoid an obsticle?  Would you
> consider driving your car into a ditch in a real emergency if the
> alternative was to run over a pedestrian?
> 
> Hopefully the answers will enlighten you to the fact that the degree
> to which a large loss is acceptable depends upon how bad the
> alternative is.

Schweet.

>Martin Milan wrote:
>What we need at our place is for a director to simply decide to smash and alarm on his >way in one day...
>

As long as there's no AFA, or he will NOT be popular with the crew when
they arrive on the doorstep......

nightjar wrote:
>
> The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (as amended) require
> almost all businesses to carry out a fire risk assessment and to ensure that
> staff are informed and trained in accordance with the conclusions reached in
> that risk assessment. There is no specific requirement for fire drills, as,
> like most Health and Safety regulations, they are drafted to meet a wide
> range of needs and it is left to the risk assessor to decide what is
> appropriate in individual circumstances.
>

Which I guess is why I've worked in a Brigade headquarters for several
years and we've never had one........     :-o

One of our stations has one of those official-type fire precations
notices on the wall (you know, the ones that tell you what to do &
where to go).  It's been tampered with so now it just says:-


IN THE EVENT OF FIRE....

PUT IT OUT!!!!