• Peter Bateman
    182
    In the July/Aug edition of Safeguard magazine we pose these questions based on stories in the magazine:
    • WorkSafe chief executive Phil Parkes wants to shift the conversation so that the discussion with business is about how to achieve better work. He suggests H&S practitioners do the same. Have you tried this? How did it work out?
    • With the focus in recent years on critical risks, have we collectively forgotten about the widespread but non-fatal risk of musculoskeletal disorders? And can worker-led job design steer us towards better?
    • Rather than paying a fine, defendants being directed to spend money on projects to benefit H&S in their sector sounds like a great idea, but may leave victims feeling justice has not been served. How best to find a balance?

    Feel free to respond in public to one or more of these questions here on the Forum, or privately here via a Survey Monkey form.

    An edited selection of responses will be published in the Sept/Oct edition, but with no names attached. One randomly selected person will receive a prize, namely a copy of the Health & Safety Handbook 2020, published by Thomson Reuters.
  • Tracy Richardson
    10
    Topic 1:
    If you want to to shift the conversation so that the discussion with business is about how to achieve better work take the discussion out the boardroom and bring it to the people. Train your people leaders how to have safety conversations, have a system in place that makes it easy to report hazards, incidents. Put in a "better way" system that if the team suggest an idea, trail it for 3 months and and months and implement if successful. Don't leave it to the H&S people, incorporate safety into all aspects of operations so it becomes the 'new normal'.

    Topic 2:
    Have ACC recognize it as a issue and not treat it as 'something that happens with age i.e. degenerative disease'. Fines are useless if nothing is been done to resolve the issues and workers are not involved. Keep the training simple and ensure it is a topic discussed through the month.

    Topic 3:
    Put proposals out, get employees and involved and encourage feedback BEFORE spending the money on projects to benefit H&S instead of AFTER spending the money and telling the staff what the benefits are
  • Andrew
    306
    1, Its been whayt I have been saying since for about forever.

    2. We havent forgotten - but we must always prioritize the really dangerous stuff over h lesser stuff

    3. Loot should go to the victim
  • Steve H
    27
    With the focus in recent years on critical risks, have we collectively forgotten about the widespread but non-fatal risk of musculoskeletal disorders? And can worker-led job design steer us towards better?
    The folks doing the job almost always know how to do the job easier, probably with better outcomes, but not necessarily safer. Wouldn't disagree that the highest priority has to go to the really nasty issues, but the outcome of a gradual process injury shouldn't be lost sight of,as long term it could well just about as bad. Yes I know being dead is worst than being cast into a wheel chair, but if either scenario is avoidable by improvements to how work is done, then it isn't defensible not to do that

    .
    Topic 3:
    Put proposals out, get employees and involved and encourage feedback BEFORE spending the money on projects to benefit H&S instead of AFTER spending the money and telling the staff what the benefits are
    Tracy Richardson
    Isn't this veering off into Worksafe directing the scope of a significant project order?

    3. Loot should go to the victimAndrew
    Restore the right to sue for damages, whether by act, omission, poor product design, defective manufacture or import and sale of non compliant equipment with stated New Zealand requirements, or purchase and use of such equipment by a PCBU, or requiring it to be used in an employment situation
  • Don Ramsay
    14
    1. Conversations have worked relatively well in changing the director's focus, but there are still some old values that are proving hard to shift.

    2. Having left a company that spent all its time beating people around critical risks, I have found here in my new position that the little risks are getting the same attention as the critical risks and the team is engaged.

    3. I do believe that if companies are given a penalty then made to reinvest that money on H&S initiatives, that has to be a positive approach but some may see it as an easy way out. Take the fine and get the money back to make the situation right. Maybe half costs back to the company after providing evidence of improvement.

    Just some thoughts
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.