Comments

  • WorkSafe new ads?

    Amy. While Sharknado is an excellent film (perhaps out done by Birdemic - and never to be out done by The Room) Marvel are the highest grossing franchise with around $18b, followed by Star Wars, Harry Potter, James Bond, Lord of the Rings etc.

    At best they might be looking at $45m in gross revenues for whole franchise (these movies only have a production budget of $2 - $3m each).
  • WorkSafe new ads?
    I am left wondering about Kylees intentions
    5lf8sy22sugsj9j3.jpg
    .
  • ACC and Changed Diagnosis
    If the claim is accepted all claim costs, including earnings compo get put against your employer account experience rating. Depends on how big your company is and how big an issue it is.

    In principle I say to staff expect me to challenge an ACC claim if I don't see the incident in the Accident Book. Gives them a wee incentive to report stuff.

    I have no time for malingerers who try to fob off their non-work claims onto the employer. So I will challenge any claim I dont think belongs on my account. Mainly because I like to have a clean a record as possible. So if Worksafe or Immigration or whoever comes a knocking they don't get the idea we are a reckless employer. Consequently I pretty much always only have to deal with genuine work claims. Though I am about to cast an eye over a carpal tunnel claim just lodged by an employee who left 8 months ago.

    The Experience Rating part doesn't actually bother me. The impact isn't enough of an incentive to get me excited.

    I also don't work on "assumptions" - a doctors view is key.

    Also there is a difference between pain and an injury.
  • Pregnancy and Working Guidelines

    Sarah
    Pregnant women are pretty robust critters. You'll likely find tiredness the biggest issue (other than pregnancy related issues) so keep the lines of communication open and adjust work processes accordingly.
  • ACC and Changed Diagnosis

    Helen
    ACC will send you a blue letter headed "Employee Claim"

    Down the bottom it give you the option to call 0800 222 096 if you disagree the claim is work related.

    They will send you a form on why you disagree. They won't take your word for it. You will need a medical specialist opinion. Attach the arthritis diagnosis and see how you go.

    I assume there was a specific event in your Injury register that points to something that caused the sprain? If so it is worth an investigation to see if that was indeed a probable cause
  • When to Stop Recording Contractors LTI Days

    For me the bigger issue is why is he still off work and not on a light duty rehab. That hairline fracture in the neck had better be quite serious. I would have thought a max of about 50 consecutive days.
  • Quote of the year?
    My money is on him thinking how to race a boat.
  • GUIDE ON BUILDING HSE DEPARTMENT
    Either someone is having a larf or we should be very afraid.
  • Position Paper on Cannabis
    I'm against pre-employment testing as well. But best we leave that for another day.
  • Position Paper on Cannabis
    Steve, I'll take a bit of an issue with "Testing for impairment is difficult"

    It really isn't that hard. And its a stepped approach. And an approach where you preferably get the person to admit they have a problem rather than you invasively testing for what might not be a problem - drugs in a system does not = impairment.

    Firstly we are basically creatures of habit. What we do today we'll do tomorrow. So the first thing managers need to look for is a break in that pattern. Lateness for work, slowness of output, lower quality. Down to things like hand eye coordination, balance, movement etc. These give an opportunity to start a chat.

    At the chat you can observe pupil size. (Dilated pupil may be indicative of cannabis related impairment) And are eye movements smooth and focussed. Do they move uncontrolled. The eyes are truly the window to the (impaired) soul.

    If you want to dig a little deeper you can ask them to focus on an object in front of their face and you move the object around and see what the eyes do. Or you just move your own body around a bit and see how the persons eyes react.

    This can be done by anyone - the purpose is just to form an initial view on which to base the next step.

    If you are cheeky you could ask them to stand on two legs, ask them to tilt their head back close their eyes and once they reckon 30 seconds has passed bring their head forward and stay "stop". If they wobble or can't follow the instructions you have a clue.

    I would much sooner we had a "just cause" for taking action against someone. There should be a reason why we interfere with a person. Drug testing should be last resort.

    Rather than drug testing I would much sooner we focussed on formal Impairment Training that covered things like constriction and dilation of pupils, eye convergence and the Romberg Balance test. For those into compliance, or risk adverse in terms of unions, PG etc then a "certification" course would be handy. I'd sign up for that.
  • Using "days since last accident" signs
    Matt.

    Always hard to prove a negative.

    But I see a similarity in the Government insistence on (miss) reporting Covid positive results on a daily basis. After x days of community free transmission who wants to be the first person with a runny nose to be the one to test SARS-Cov2 positive. It was reported that in the Auckland cluster there was a delay in testng within one family due to the negative impact a result might have on the family. I havent seen any follow up of this.
  • Having an accident Investigation scale dependent on the event
    I investigate very few incidents. Most incidents are "minor" - that is a first aid type treatment or less. And most are due to the same cause. So there is little to be learnt from a new investigation, we have some inherent risk that we can't change and our management of those risks will always be proportional to the potential (and realistic) outcome. So basically I just wear first aid type injuries.

    The ones that get my attention are the "near hit" ones. They pretty much consistently show something has continuously got under the radar and not been managed. So they need a fair bit of attention to remediate.

    Doctor visit type incidents get a bit of attention - but each of these is on a case by case basis. We'll sometimes send a person to the doctor purely for a precautionary lookover and confirmation nothing major has happened.

    Hospitalisations would get an investigation. But these are a bit trickier. Pretty much the only time ambulances are called out is due to personal health issues. So the "investigation" is more around is it right for the person to be remaining at work, given their health issues.
  • Position Paper on Cannabis
    Aside from my view I think this is a totally pointless referendum I shall be voting "yes"

    The issue for me has always been and remains today, an issue of competence to do a job. With the flip side of that coin being impairment that prevents a person from being competent.

    During my (long) work life there have been four consistent impairment problems. And in no particular order they are Alcohol misuse, mental health, attitude and family issues. Way below that are things like fatigue and prescribed medications. Cannabis misuse doesn't really get on the radar - though I accept that may in part be due to its current legal status.

    So, regardless of the results of the referendum I will continue not to have a Drug policy, I won't be doing drug testing and I won't be poking my nose into the private lives of our workers.

    I am fully expecting a plague of parasites trying to sell me drug testing and drug focussed health and safety systems. I saw off those terrible Pre-Qual people and I will see off this next breed as well. I'm sure I'll lbe frustrated by worthies creating 40 page policies and curtain twitchers looking for the next best test.

    Out of it I hope we will treat people as individuals and treat each of their own set of individual circumstances with care and dignity. While not losing sight that our responsibility lies in ensuring our businesses remain productive and our workers as safe as practicable.
  • Quote of the year?
    And that's why Team NZ are winners.
  • The Hazard Register - what is it really for?
    While there may be no legal requirement for a "risk Rating" (I hope we do this stuff for reasons other than the law tells us to) I have a rating in my reGRegister.

    Two main reasons.
    I reckon it actually does give the risk a more objective view, than a subjective one - we need to think a bit harder about it and actually think more about 'real risk" than "ercieved risk"

    It also gives me a sense of priority. Eg "Paper Cuts" score very low and I give them zero amount of attention., Where as losing a finger rates very high so this gets loads of attention.

    The risk rating is "public" that way everyone gets to see the "priorities" or really dangerous stuff. And the reason why.

    There is also two sides to risk. There is the pre-management side where we know something has a certain level of danger with no controls. And the other side is hopefully a whole lot less dangerous once we have implemented out controls. The "risk rating" can help measure the two.
  • Worksafe Snapshot Assessment
    I've had several visits.

    Prior to the first one they wanted copies of everything emailed. Policy, risk registers, injury records, investigation records, health checks, environmental assessments, SOP's. Employment Agreements, Meeting minutes etc etc. I just sent them through - I'm not into garnishing stuff to make it look good for an auditor.

    First visit was fine - a couple of extremely minor "improvement" suggestions. So trivial I can't remember them.

    Second visit wanted all the documentations pre visit - again.

    Second visit went pretty much like the first. Asked to talk privately with one of the Safety Advocates (we don't have a Committee with Reps).

    This time got issued a formal Improvement Notice. Had to put an Emergency Stop on a machine that was inspected previously. The machine has loads of guarding so was fine on that count. Thing is, this machine can't have an Emergency Stop. It energises, has a full revolution single cycle, cycles once (takes about a second) and that is it until the operator starts the cycle again. We put an E Stop in, took a photo and sent it away. So all is good. Except the E Stop achieves nothing.

    Visits were fine - each took about an hour. Nothing achieved or useful from our end. But I guess Worksafe has to satisfy themselves that things are actually being done.

    They will be welcome back again.
  • Accredited Employers Programme (AEP) - ACC
    I could be if I wanted to be. But I can't be bothered. Injury outcomes too low to even make it worth thinking about.

    Did get Accredited Employer (Talent) from Immigration and that is much more useful
  • Three questions - have your say!
    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