I thought that the Ghost chips add was NZTA, not Worksafe

This is an extract from the latest press release.

"The message was inspired by meerkats and their ability to sense danger and protect one another. The new campaign will roll out over the next six months and is premised on the idea that like a meerkat we all have the instinct to sense danger."

Not a fan of the ad

We use VAULT and I find that when used correctly it does hold the information in the correct places, the only thing I find that if you print a TNA (Training Needs analysis) it does not place the dates on the printed copy.

You can set the intervals for reporting of expiry dates, to give yourself enough time to book refreshers, also you can set the job descriptions to populate with what training is required for each trade group.

But having said that I have manipulated some of the data in the settings so I can get the reports to populate with what I want and deleted some of the fields.

Vault is also good if you have an integrated management system as it can cross-reference some of the information that is entered.

I have also used safeguard at a previous company, it was adequate but just a touch behind Vault.

I hope this was of some assistance

Great Thank you

There are great training models but they are of no use if you do not understand how people learn and what engages them. In a past job, I was the national trainer and spent a lot of time getting to know the target audience and how they absorbed information also spent a lot of effort leaning the subjects by engaging the workers in conversations about what they do and how did they learn to do it. From those conversations, you can develop training material that is more suitable to the audience. And also identify when a particular method is not working and change direction to get back track.

You may even find that you will have 2 or 3 presentations for the same subject set at differing learning types, not that you have to use all of them but always good to have a backup.

Just some thoughts and I wish you success in your training.

I do hope that it is a joke......

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

Have never been a fan of these signs as they show failures and focus on who is the next person to have an incident/accident. And management place to much emphasis on the numbers and not the reality.

Pre quals are only to the benefit to the provider as they are making money from us the suppliers when we provide the information, and charging the customer to use the information. My understanding of pre quals when they first kicked off was that they were to streamline the passage of information and make the process easier, but I have found that this is not the case. I now need to do 8 differing prequals based on who our customer uses... and now I understand that there is another in the wings CHANZ

We conduct a dig deeper for incidents that happen more than once to get to the root cause, but you do need to involve the affected parties and have them be open minded during the process. This may go a way to preventing any future occurrence and gets them engaged in the deeper thought process around incidents.