what do you think?

Discussion in 'Science Technicians - General Discussion' started by Beth, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. I work in a newly merged dual site school 9 miles apart.
    We have science facilities on both sites ,one HOD and travelling staff
    A suggestion has been made that to save money we transport SYC list flammable liquids between schools.
    Thoughts please?
    I know mine but would like to see what you all think
  2. As long as RA are in place and regulations (which I cannot recall the finer details of through time) followed and of course proper insurance in place for transportation then fair enough.
  3. who does the transporting? If it's you, who pays for your extra insurance? I know I couldn't do it as there's no way I could carry stuff safely on the bike and 9 miles is too far to walk. Not sure it does save money - I think it would actually cost more (unless you're using gallons of flammable liquids)
    Beth likes this.
  4. See CLEAPSS handbook section 20.7
    They've got all the info you need to make your case against it as even by CLEAPSS admission it's a very murky business of regulations, exemptions with iffy definitions etc.
    Beth likes this.
  5. As Carine says, there is the issue of adding business insurance if you have to use your own car. Obviously it will depend on amounts being transported - I assume it's not gallons but there is the issue of personal safety should an accident occur. Will the school back you up in such a case?
    We had a similar issue in that one of our teachers does some lessons at a different site and transports things in her own car. As people suggest, look at Cleapps but i've found it to be a real grey area. I feel that fingers would be pointed here so if I were you I would just make sure all of the bases are covered. Think about yourself first over the needs of the school.
    Beth and ClaireS like this.
  6. From past experience at my previous school, using personal transport for business use is contrary to almost all car insurance policies, and would normally exclude chemicals, flammable or otherwise. Using school vehicles for chemical transportation would need to be covered under the school's particular vehicular insurance. See CLEAPSS section 13.13.13 entitled 'wouldn't touch it with a barge pole'.
    ClaireS, Beth and R Pipette like this.
  7. Vee


    i wouldnt transport chemicals - am in agreement with everyone above re: insurance, and I know that certain chemicals require ADR certificate for transport which i do not possess... i dont think it is a wise idea
    Beth and ClaireS like this.
  8. that opens up so many other issues. transport of flammable liquids, insurance for this and a car designated for it(couldn't use a personal car) minimum, - I think NOPE would be my first answer even without looking in to the logistics - I recon it would cost more than just a 2nd flammable cupboard in the long run.
    Beth and ClaireS like this.
  9. Dod


    If the new merged school has science facilities, why do they not have stocks of science requisites.
    My suggestion would be to keep a stock in both establishments and avoid transporting chemicals, liquids and powders of varying riskiness as there is a can of worms being opened.

    Put it back to the management suggestee to get the insurance, certificates, containers, permissions, carriage signage, risk assessments needed for chemical transport, re-imbursement of costs in place before any further progress is made in asking staff to use their own transport in moving workplace materials.

    Also get it all in writing before even considering taking on the shifting, as in other thread, certainly have a chat with your union and get their opinion.
    Vee, Techno, Beth and 5 others like this.
  10. NO definitely NO.
    Rachel, Techno, ClaireS and 4 others like this.
  11. Just you tell it as it is Dod. :)
    Beth and ClaireS like this.
  12. Thank you everyone...….all singing from my hymn sheet then
  13. Not as long as there's breath in my body would I do that. what a ******* liberty!
    Techno, ClaireS, Beth and 1 other person like this.
  14. How does it save money, you still need a flamable store in each location, simpler to get some delivered to each site, you would need to pack it to the same standard it is delivered in anyway to transport it safely.
    ClaireS and Beth like this.
  15. [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Agree with everything above. Would have to be a company vehicle and all items in proper storage containers. A logistics nightmare, really.
    Beth, ClaireS, Smiff12 and 1 other person like this.
  16. Thanks everyone for the opinions ……...battle won ,woo hoo
  17. Love it
  18. Im so glad!
  19. I am just wondering where we would stick our safety signs if we did have to shift things on a bike. Plus I have no fixed luggage on mine so they would then have to buy me a top box :p
    Beth likes this.
  20. As a multi site institution we really have no option but to move chemicals, especially as deliveries are only made to one centre. They can be moved by me or the College van driver. My view is that careful, insured transport by me is safer than the other choice.
    Carine likes this.