So the slushy machines dispense beverages with almost a weeks worth of sugar per drink but oh wait you have a choice of electrolyte solutions as well - which some would argue are equally unhealthy - a whopping 9 teaspoons in a 600ml bottle of, for example, Gatorade. With 15 calories in a single teaspoon of sugar, you're consuming a 600ml Gatorade means you're drinking 135 calories of sugar. In one sitting. PING!

Also, much has been made about the heatwave during 2017/18 causing significant discomfort for many people, including prison staff (and prisoners, presumably), yet during that time there were no slushies but effective actions were apparently taken (e.g. more or longer breaks for prison officers (where they could take off there stab vests etc., cold towels, hand-held fans etc.) with no major incidents occurring, despite the conditions. So why not spend less money improving those seemingly effective and simple solutions, rather than now having over 5000 prison staff pinging about the place on massive sugar rushes & contracting "the diabetus" within a week?

Surely a strategically placed small fridge in particular staff areas where staff can store their own cold beverages would be more economical - with the MOJ supplying electrolyte substances such as Sqwincher?

Also the big unanswered question seems to be are the prison officers paying for the slushies or are they gratis?

Hey team, thanks so much for your assistance, you've all been extremely helpful. You can all have Saturday off! Cheers!
Jono

Hi MAry-Pat, thanks for that, already got it. Cheers.

Tony, that is EXACTLY what was after. Spot on man, thanks heaps!:up:

Excellent, thanks a lot man:up:

Very interesting indeed. We're having a "spirited debate" in our workshop at the moment in regards to RPE for our welders, goes something like this:
"I understand (and agree) that the guys who are welding continuously need to wear respirators, however If I'm only tacking for 5-15 or so minutes then I don't have to as (wait for it) it takes too long to put that stuff on"

Since most golf clubs are businesses, surely the golf club is a PCBU then must have the appropriate WSMS in place?

Well spotted sir! Odd that someone in the forestry industry hasn't sparked up (or maybe they have but no-one's heard), however I guess if all else fails there's always the broadcasting authority?
The Block NZ also used to be a regular offender, haven't watched it for a while so don't know if they've tidied their act up.

No it's not just you. Under current law it is prohibited to ride a bicycle on the footpath so why a Lime scooter? Having said that, I did think Annalisa had an interesting idea re the speed limit...

re your very last paragraph i.e. "So, in answer to the Op's question " would you classify anyone that is driving a company vehicle as being in a safety sensitive role" the answer has to be most certainly no", maybe not a safety sensitive role but certainly a safety sensitive "task" and thus will justify random drug testing.

For what it's worth though I do see your point(s) and am waiting to see how this all goes once marijuana is legalised...

Hi Natalie, yes indeed document everything as much as possible - the Worksafe person is correct. "If it isn't documented, it doesn't exist" is on the money - I have also been told this. You need to document everything - "Document" is pretty broad-brush, it doesn't mean you have to hold on to reams of paper, it applies to e-mails etc.
This is particularly advisable if you are having H&S "issues" with, e.g. an individual or management, especially when these issues result in an accident.

Nice one Simon. Bang on mate.

What did the Worksafe person say, Julie?

Hi Cameron the issue is management are quite happy to maintain a double standard i.e. people who don't wear glasses must wear safety glasses, whereas people who do wear glasses do not have to wear over glasses.

Hi Andrew:
I work in an engineering business owned, basically, by the staff. The managers are also directors & qualified engineers who have literally "come up through the ranks" and it is they who implemented the PPE requirements, therefore clear articulation to "the managers" is not an issue, they are well aware of the risk.

As mentioned previously, a hazard/risk has been identified and controls put in place to minimise said risk, and for various reasons anyone who transits / works in the area must wear safety glasses - in some cases for the same reason your boots are mandatory i.e. practicality. However, in most cases the staff that do wear "normal" glasses have to get right in with the workers to observe what they're doing, in which case when they they do this they do not wear over glasses and are thus putting themselves at just as much risk - if not more - as the person doing the work.

Also, I would definitely like to see what Worksafe would have to say during an investigation where it comes to light that the accident happened to a person who was wearing "normal" glasses" working right next to the worker who was wearing safety glasses.

Re your comment 'I'm not a big fan of "Mandatory" ' - I'm interested to hear why? I mean, seat belts are mandatory, life jackets are mandatory, crash helmets are mandatory...

Thanks Michelle

Thanks Lisa & Jo. The company does provide up to $250 for prescription safety glasses yet it seems individuals are not keen to use this option, for whatever reason, although I suspect personal cost is one. In the meantime, the issue still remains - the fact that management seem to think it's okay for some have to wear safety glasses and others not, which regardless of the comfort factor is unacceptable.

Hi Chris,

We test random across the board i.e. not just safety sensitive roles, and no-one complains.

The only changes we've experienced have been positive.

The operators should be wearing them regardless - "should" be the first thing they do when they hop in the machine.

Oh God... this type of thing is so cringeworthy! I'm going to get complete crap at work now!