I will confess I was avoiding this discussion but the temptation got too much or perhaps I now have too much time for my mind to roam and have fingers enough to tap out searches via Google.

Anyone read this? Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Part 7.18 S(5) specifically relates to this discussion while there are several other sections that apply to day to day (or in some cases night to night) when driving a motor vehicle or using roads (but then what constitutes a road could be a discussion for another time).

My 2 cents worth

I had a brief read of the booklet @Robb linked to.
While it contains information that could be used to develop learning sessions, I don't see how it can assist developing a learning session. I'll briefly expand on my earlier post.

Learning outcomes are many and will include what the organisation expects following training sessions, what the learners expect to know, and what the facilitator expects the learners to know. All three are different as they are for three different stakeholders who while they heading in a similar direction, have different interpretations of what success looks like.

Management may be looking at increased productivity, workers could be looking at new techniques and the facilitator looking at improving delivery techniques. To achieve them all, the three groups need to end up in the same final location.

In order to get to that location means planning. So in an education situation, planning is usually done by a person skilled to design a course, program etc.

Teaching children is like filling an empty vessel. Pour the information and later (in life) the child will work out what is relevant and discard what is not.

Adults are different. They are already fill with knowledge from their earlier childhood education plus all they have accumulated from their multitude of life experiences. So there is not enough space to just pour in more knowledge like when we were kids.
Also, adults have been through the phase of discarding irrelevant information and learned how to apply that. (Every watched adults switch off at training sessions because of the method of delivery or content is not interesting?). They know what's good and what's not.

So coming back to planning, start with the idea and then talk with the people who the idea will affect (management and workers). If they are not interested, it's a dead duck in the water. If they are interested, what are they interested in and why. This contributes to learning outcomes, assessment design, content, context and delivery methods. Incidentally as this is part of WEPR, the network should already be established (if not, a good time to start).

Without educational training, (I can recommend SIT for this), my observations are that inhouse delivery of H&S knowledge by untrained people either becomes a tick-box exercise, a one-shot wonder, boring, or is outsourced and becomes generic.

You don't need to be a subject matter expert to be an inhouse educator. It helps but is not necessary. But to encourage workers to learn, you do need to know what you are doing when you are in front of adults. They are as wise, if not wiser than you, and know all the tricks of the trade.

I guess that's worth 20 cents today.
Cheers.


PS
Attached is part of a proposal I'll be taking to a company engaged in the construction industry. I’ve had verbal discussions with management who have approved the submission of a proposal. Once I have feedback from company stakeholders I'll create a draft program with learning outcomes, assessments, lesson plans, content, learning and assessment locations, refine existing elements in the outline, and send to learners, management, peers and subject matter experts for moderation and feedback.

Hey @Shayla McCormick,
Some suggestions of why and how before you get inundated with information about what.

Consider what the outcomes for the learners will be, so you can work out what they need to learn. You can then work out methods to assist them to learn.
Decide on how the learning will occur - teacher centered or learner led. This relates to delivery methods, learning outcomes, content and assessments.
Keep in mind that adult learners learn for reasons known to them - they are not taught like children.

ShopCare may be of assistance.


Just my 2 cents worth.

@Lucille N
So if workers sign something - in this case a site risk register - what is the purpose and how will the purpose be measured?
What are the benefits and who benefits?
Is there a defined outcome or is the activity a tick box exercise?
Who is driving the need to sign?
What is the opinion of the workers?
What would signing achieve?

Is the system immature or misguided?

While there is a difference between guidance and advice, the decision will ultimately be yours.

Just my 2 cents worth.

@Lucille N
No disrespect but why are you asking this question?
What is its purpose?

Too many unknowns without any defining criteria.

Just a question.

While this sounds good in theory, practical application may be limited with a majority of businesses probably unable to provide a reasonable budget.

As part of my studies, I briefly looked at New Zealand businesses. This is what I found.

In Feb 2022 according to Stats NZ, there were 592,705 businesses in NZ.
Of these, the 97.1% employed who 19 people or less are classified as small to medium enterprises. (NZ and Australia share the same cutoff number while in Europe and the US, the cutout is 49 employees).
Doing the maths, this equates to 575,703 SMEs and 17,001 larger enterprises.

Given NZ's GDP in 2021 was US$247.23B according to Trading Economics, in NZ dollars this is $427.11B.

A KPMG report (page 3, para ) determined that SMEs contribute about 25% of the NZ GDP.

Again doing the maths, on average each SME contributes NZ$185,474 to GDP while the average for each large enterprise is NZ$18,842,104.

So going back to the number of NZ SMEs - 575,703 - who are easier to target because there are more of them and are more likely to take shortcuts due to the disparity of income, is it not time to revisit how H&S is supported in NZ?

I like the idea Peter and believe it has merit, just not sure it will gain traction with smaller businesses given their average financial earnings.

Just my 2 cents worth

@Matthew Bennett
Now you have had an opportunity to read the spreadsheet, try changing "Working at heights" to "Collecting raindrops" and decide whether you are looking at a hazard or an activity.

Decide where the potential for harm exists. Is it at the activity stage? If not, where?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi @Matthew Bennett.
I got the impression you were on a fishing expedition.
In this post, you make some valid points but I'm not sure they relate to your original question.

Looking at

What is your favorite / preferred, succinct definition of 'Working at Height'? — Matthew Bennett

there is an assumption that "Working at Height" is a hazard. Trying to define working at height as a hazard is, as you point out, likely to result in innocuous definitions.

As an option, consider "Working at height" not as a hazard, but as an activity. Abet a general activity similar to say - driving a car or walking across a sports field.

If working at height is an activity, then evaluate what actual or potential hazard does this activity present?
In this activity, the hazard will usually be a fall to a lower level or in some cases falling and being suspended.

The harm may be anything from nothing through to life changing or life threatening injuries.
Possibly, the hazard is what happens before the harm occurs but after the activity.

As you also mentioned, context needs to be taken into account. Continuing from working at height as an activity, where will the activity occur?
Consider the location the activity occurs to be a hazardous situation. Several have been mentioned - walking down stairs, working on roofs, working near unprotected edges, walking on a sloping surface. if these are the source of the hazard, then an opportunity exists to control the hazard proactively rather than reactively (though this is a topic for another occasion).



How does this fit together?
Start with an activity - working at height.

Consider the hazardous situations.
In this discussion I found 19 but there may be more

Determine the hazard.
There are many but most involve falling, some stepping and a few being bounced.

Look at the hazard outcome.
Most outcomes result in landing on a lower level though some result in being suspended.

Then consider the harm caused by the hazard outcome.
And this can vary.

Attached is a table for discussion.

Just my 2 cents worth

@Matthew Bennett,
You first asked

What is your favorite / preferred, succinct definition of 'Working at Height'? — Matthew Bennett

An open question with few parameters or limitations.

MattD2 replied

"Work where there is the potential to fall from one level to another which increase the risk of injury." — MattD2

and you said

and while it does 'define' working at height, I don't like it. — Matthew Bennett

So what don't you like about the definition Matthew? And why?
Is it the wording? Is it an interpretation or interpretations? Is it as a definition as a hazard? Or as a risk? Or as a definition of harm. Or as a event or events? Or as a training topic?
So again, what don't you like about the definition Matthew? And why?


Once you express what you don't like about the definition - either MatD2's or any in current usage - then your question has a foundation to evaluate and we can provide feedback for you to come to a conclusion.

And your reply to MattD2's question, "Curious though of the actual question behind your question..." could then be revisited.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi @Gail Swanepoel,
A difference exists between competent, certified and qualified.
An educator needs to hold applicable qualifications, be certified to educate to a standard or level, and competent to apply their learned knowledge.
Learners may optionally acquire specific qualifications, optionally be assessed as capable to a given standard, and practically demonstrate a level of competency by applying their learned knowledge while being observed by an educator or person with similar but greater experience.

While a competent person may have knowledge, they may not have qualifications or assessed as certified.
A person may gain qualifications or certification yet not achieve competency.

Some activities can be taught by competent people who do not hold qualifications or certification.
Other activities, and this will vary, legally require the person in the teaching position to hold a relevant qualification(s) or certification(s).
In some cases, the need for qualification or certification is both recommended and advantageous.

Gail, while the final recommendation is one only you can make, it maybe flavoured by legislative requirements and what risk the organisation is exposed to.

My 2 cents worth again.

@Rachael,
Not sure what the correction was about for the Federal Communications Commission mantra.
Could you cast a little more light on what the item needing correction please.

Cheers

Hi @Courtney
The HOP principle is sound and based on fact.
The belief by Anthony Mitchell is exactly that - a belief that is not based on fact.

That people make mistakes is human nature and the reasoning covered by HOP here.
How to ensure all accidents are preventable can be done by people doing nothing that has any risk attached - ergo wrap them in cotton wool. Anthony Mitchell states his belief here.

So what's a fact? Something that is can be determined by researching the evidence.
While a belief may be true, it is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
Source - Colorado State University

Personally I admire people for their beliefs though when serious injury or fatal risk exists, I prefer to rely on facts.

My 2 cents worth

Hi Stuart,
These are my thoughts.

The term "tight fitting respirator" is commonly associated with negative pressure respirators where air is drawn by the wearer inhaling through a filter usually attached directly to the respirator. This requires the respirator to fit the face (in the case of half face respirators) or head (in the case of a full face respirator) so contaminants cannot be inhaled by the wearer.

Ensuring an airtight face seal while wearing this type of respirator is essential. Fit-testing is the method to ensure the respirator fits the face or head of the wearer and seals under simulated conditions. A face seal is the method to ensure the wearer has donned the respirator prior to use and is airtight sealed to the face or head or the wearer.

PAPR respirators work on the principle of supplying air at higher pressure inside the respirator than the surrounding environment therefore expelling any contaminants so they cannot be inhaled by the wearer. Usually the air is expelled around the side of the head, face and chin areas from a hood or full face mask.

Now you stated,
"Beards and Clean Space Masks
Clean Space advocate as their tight fitting masks work on a positive pressure mode so can be worn with people with beards."

A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard?

I base the question on this.
A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal.

So these are my views regarding your question which I'll repeat:
"The question is has anyone any views on testing the Clean Space masks, if so do they do it in the powered on mode or power off mode?"

IMHO your question should be directed to the manufacturer.
Cheers.

No offence @Stuart Keer-Keer but have you done any due diligence?
I get the impression that rather than asking for clarity about a chapter or two, you want information about the entire book because you have only read the dust jacket flap.

Quick research indicates that Clean Space masks clearly state on their website what type of respirator they produce. IMHO, generally, 3M are the goto organisation regarding these types of respirators.

Fit testing and face seals are two methods used for ensuring a certain type of respirator is both fit for purpose and fitted corrected. While CleanSpace Respirators (to give them their correct name) do reference fit-testing and the appropriate AS/NZS standard, a PAPR works in a different fashion to a respirator that requires fit-testing and face seal checks.

When wearing a respirator, air comes in from somewhere. And it exists somewhere also. Knowing how the air enters and exists a respirator can assist determining whether fit testing is required.

Equally, the purpose for it's use as well as the size of the budget will determine the type of respirator. For me, it's no different than deciding whether to purchase standard LED bulbs or convert the house using smart bulbs. It depends on what I want to do and how much money I have.

So going back to the beginning, I suggest some research - 3M, Euromarc, Honeywell, GVS-rpb - and then have a discussion.

My 2 cents worth.

NZTA has information regarding these situations:

Driving using a valid overseas licence
Driving a small passenger vehicle

Discussing changes with workers and coming to mutual (and often realistic) agreement is different to hearing and then imposing.

Researching cultures
Asking for advice
Listening without interruption
Talking openly and clearly
Listening with respect
Speaking honestly
Building trust
Treating with equality
Eating humble pie
Acknowledging wrongs
Accepting other authority figures
Treating with respect
Gifting without expectations

I like your joke @Trudy Downes

@Andrew
While I am aware of the educational outcomes faced by Maori and Pasifika males, this thread relates to women of any ethnicity.

@Andrew
I believe you may be confusing individual success with applying for a position (in a more senior role).

The factors I mentioned have, in New Zealand and IMHO, origins in education legislation following the signing on the Treaty of Waitangi. A brief overview is here - Who achieves what in secondary schooling? A conceptual and empirical analysis in Appendix 1 p78.
These have impacted women - regardless of race - since their introduction.

And personally, I accept I am a privileged New Zealander descended from racist British colonialists.

Looking at the picture since 1840.

Premiers or PMs since 1856 (no Premier in 1854)
41 in total, 3 women and 38 men
Women 7.32%

Chief Justices since 1841
13 in total, 2 women and 11 men
Women 15.88%

Governors, Governors-General or Governor-Generals since 1841
38 in total, 4 women and 34 men
Women 10.53%

MPs since 1854
5347 in total, 494 women and 4853 men
Women 9.24%

Just looking at the bigger picture