Hello all !
Thanks both, I am happy to see this tread is interesting for you. Some remarks or answers :
Randy, it's only a kind of requirements you "should" obey strictly... the legal requirements because their application is mandatory ...
In other cases requirements are voluntary applied, as ISO 9001 or ILO-OSH (the company opted to use it or not). Their requirements may be written "shall" or "should", it does not matter : a company which choses to apply ILO-OSH requirements would be completly stupid to consider thereafter the formulation "should" to avoid to satisfy its requirements ! To think so is mocking the intelligence of these companies (certified or not).
But otherwise if legal requirements would be written with some "should" requirements then compagnies would be free to satisfy or not these "should" requirements unlike normal mandatory legal requirements...
And I recall to you that OSHMS international guidelines or standards but models (Samsung) are essentialy OSH improvement tools for compagny (without any certification requirement, neither "shall" nor "should").
Kgott, I agree with your last message (I was specialy happy to read the memo on the absurdity of the "behavior-based safety", its perfect !), it's realy a pleasure to discuss prevention with an OSH officer, even you don't answer my questions regarding the different OSHMS models (nor my subsidiary question on your 20 years professional experience, personnaly I am OSH officer since 1978).
Regarding your "BTW*" I am obviouslt ok too : my english is not subtle (it's a difficulty for me to discuss correctly with you guys) but "order" (as in ILO-OSH for example, to please Randy) is a better word (the deal is to avoid to think first and directly to PPE for example !).
* please, what means "BTW" ?
Bye.