• Road safety: fix the driver vs fix the driving environment
    I am in the "Fix the Driver" camp.

    For a start the "Vision Zero’ is an ambition that nobody should be killed or seriously injured on our roads" is ridiculous and doomed to fail, much like the Zero Harm campaign.

    I, like many others here have driven very many roads over a very long time. I am struggling to think of one single unsafe road - provided it is driven to the conditions.

    My quick fix contributions to an overall solution would be
    - ditch the "ticket the speeder" approach. Its not the speed that kills. Its failing to stop safely in the prevailing conditions that does.
    - Instantly remove off the road any person travelling 10km under the sign posted speed limits in good driving conditions. Those between 10km and the speed limit can just have a ticket. If you arent confident or competent to drive in today's modern cars to the sign posted limit then you shouldn't be be on the road.
    - Instantly remove off the road any "right Hand Lane" road hog. We don't need virtuous or distracted drivers on the road
    - Instantly remove off the road any person with a roaming lap dog in their car. Nothing like having a flying ball of fluff in an accident or a critter under your brake pedal when you need it.
    - Instantly remove off the road any cyclist travelling two- abreast. Cars can't do it. Cyclists - you arent that special.
    - introduce compulsory third party insurance. If you arent responsible enough to insure against risk to another persons major asset you arent responsible enough to own a car / drive a car.. Instantly remove off the road any person driving without insurance.
    - ban parking by "moms" within 1.5km of any school zone at drop off / pick up time. Your kids were born with two legs - use them.
    - Introduce three compulsory independent ( ie not your mum or dad) driving training sessions before any licence is handed out
    - Introduce one compulsory Defensive Drivers Training session before final licence is handed out

    A longer term solution is to remove safety features from vehicles - I think many of us just go into auto-pilot mode, thinking we are safe and there isn't much more needed to be done when driving. Eg "parking Assist" - seriously if you can't park you ought not be on the road!
  • Mythbusters - NZ version
    Its time to find somewhere new to live so went to some open homes in the weekend. Stopped at one and I thought I was entering an EQC repair zone. Strange - hadnt been mentioned in the advertising.

    Got closer it was this sign. Agent saw me taking photo and said "do you like our sign" I said "No - I havent seen anything more ridiculous in my whole life" (Must learn to apply filter between thoughts and mouth!). To which he replied its a statutory requirement because they would get into trouble if I tripped.

    If a house is that dangerous why would I want to buy it?
    osh (506K)
  • Workplace Bullying
    Sorry - no powerpoint here.

    We don't have a "bullying" policy. (I don't have any policies!). What we do have is an expectation that everyone will treat everyone else with "respect".

    Any thing that does not adhere to this principle gets managed and managed firmly - to the point people have lost their job. (Because this encompasses, bullying, bad language, sexual / racial harassment and whatever else that might show dis-repect). Its an extremely simple concept - and a very simple thing to manage.

    We did recently have one situation where a person was at risk of excessive banter. We just drew the group together and reminded them of our expectations around respectful behavior - which was basically, in this case "leave the poor bugger alone".
  • Hazard analysis forms on the wall
    Theoretically you should be able to bin them.

    Over the past year you would hope that the risk/s with a bad rating have been managed to a lower rating.

    The remaining (few) bad ones should be in BIG writing - if you need to put something on a Dept notice board (which I'm not a big fan of)

    The remainder of low ones should be so trivial you wouldn't expect engagement - there should be more important things to focus on.
  • Contractor Pre qualification /approval systems
    Gotta say I'm at a loss to understand why people use / require pre-qual processes / services. I won't use them and detest being forced into the mincer if we end up working on a construction site.

    Our fundamental premise for working with subcontractors is that we will work in partnership. That means we look after each other best interests. Its a trusted relationship and consequently we don't work with many subbies nor would we entertain working with subbies outside our sphere. We all understand that we are all here to do a good job, look after our people and make money (as a nod of respect and understanding to our shareholders).

    As for the pre-qual service providers - all I have had is totally unsavoury experiences from them. Their technical knowledge of the law was lacking and all they seemed to want to do was tick boxes and nick our intellectual property.

    I lay part of the blame at the feet of the big corporate health and safety people. They just seem interested in creating work for themselves through running objectionable compliance programmes . Its not about compliance - its about doing the right thing for all interested parties.
  • Risk Assessment Matrix
    Hmmm. I'm sensing its time to re-introduce my internationally recognised and patented FARK and FEFR scales.
  • Risk Assessment Matrix
    I think they ran out of colours.
    Critical = red = top priority to work on
    High = Maybe could be pink = second priority
    Moderate = Orange = third priority
    low = green = fourth priority
    Very low = lets make it a brown colour = lowest priority

    There is also a shortage of words. Rather than repeating the word "moderate" in the left hand column they could perhaps instead use the word "severe".

    Someone at SiteSafe needed to give some more thought to their matrix - and they have the cheek to charge for their expertise.
  • Charging PCBU 2 for induction into PCBU 1 site
    Thanks John.
    Lets flesh this out a bit further.

    An "employee" I hope is a well understood concept. Its basically a person who works under a contract for services and gets a wage or salary. As an employee this person works for an employer. Lets, for arguments sake call the employer "Upper Ltd".

    Employees are well covered by the S19 definitions of the act.

    Then you have 19 c which is an "employee of a contractor or subcontractor". Its established that to be an employee you need to have an employer. So an employee can be an employee of Upper Ltd. Upper Ltd can therefore be a Contractor / subcontractor.

    S19 B covers Contractors / Subcontractor. So Upper Ltd, is covered by the Act.

    Therefore Wider Ltd can't charge Upper Ltd.

    Stand to to reason? (Its Friday - sometimes my logic fails me)
  • Charging PCBU 2 for induction into PCBU 1 site
    That one could be a bit trickier - it could just be a computer programme access licence fee with a fee based on $100 per new computer user.
  • PPE Project & Matrix
    I looked at this some time ago and decided the only benefit is keeping someone employed.

    The value in the exercise was far outstripped by the cost associated with setting it up and updating. Just a few thoughts

    - PPE goes with a hazardous task, not a role
    - broadly speaking you should have no expiry dates. PPE needs to be fit for purpose. Which is usually decided by use not some dates (we replace safety boots each year - which is a poor financial decision as many boots still remain fit for purpose. We do it simply as a "feel good" exercise), other things like respirators, overalls, glasses, hearing protection all get replaced as required - when they are used / damaged to the point they are no longer fit for purpose.
    - PPE should be inspected at the end of each shift by the last user- thus a reasonable time is given to allow for replacement.
    - Employees have health and safety duties (as do managers). Its about time something basic like checking PPE is put on their shoulders.

    I don't use a matrix. I just have a risk, within a specific work area (because the same risk may require a different solution in a different work area) and PPE is applied to that risk in that area. I am looking for a bit more precision than that found on a matrix. And a matrix only adds another bit of paper to a process.
  • Charging PCBU 2 for induction into PCBU 1 site
    Lets remember the Wanganui River is a legal "person" and therefore an individual with rights. If a river can be a person, then a Sub/Contractor is a person (already well established in law) and therefor an individual

    (19 (b) also makes clear distinction that a Sub/Contractor is a separate person - separate from an employee or an employee of a sub/contractor
  • Charging PCBU 2 for induction into PCBU 1 site
    You may have a point there Stuart. But I think you need to flesh out your argument a bit more.

    First go to S27 (1) which says "A PCBU must not impose a levy or charge on a worker (or permit a levy or charge to be imposed on a worker) for anything done, or provided, in relation to health and safety."

    Then go to the "interpretation section 16 and go to "worker" which then leads us to S 19.

    S 19 says a worker is "an individual who carries out work in any capacity for a PCBU, including work as....
    (B) a contractor or subcontractor; or
    (c) an employee of a contractor or subcontractor;....."

    So the sub-contractor is specifically separated into two clear individuals.

    No charge should apply.

    (Test to see if EDITing works. Yes it does!
  • Charging PCBU 2 for induction into PCBU 1 site
    I don't see why not. We already have Site Safe charging an arm and a leg for any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter a construction site.

    Add to that those Pre-Qual companies out to rort us.

    Seems like just another opportunity to clip the ticket in the name of "safety"
  • Stop/Go Gloves
    I agree Monty.
    Its a pretty sad day that we are relying on red/green gloves for our safety amongst moving vehicles.
  • Safeplus Health and Safety Performance Tool
    I've just done the on-line assessment. (Prompted by some guy doing a telephone survey)

    I was expecting a perfect result - but it doesn't do a report for one response.

    It didn't take long. Banged it out in a few minutes - though the setting up takes a bit longer.

    Judging from the questions it looks like I'l get a report at quite a superficial level. Eg "My organisation is prepared for emergencies and has told me what to do when one happens." Well how-about asking if the plan has actually been tested and I feel safe when an emergency does arise?

    I don't think I would bother with the on-line version. Too much room for disgruntled / troublesome / uninterested employees to fudge the Results. Eg "I can get involved and have my say about health and safety" - a person who is interested but doesn't want to get actively involved would likely return a negative result. (Some people, despite opportunities to speak, don't - no matter how much encouragement)

    Would be much better for an outside assessor to do it - and then drill into the evidence behind the response.

    If I was going to bring in an outside assessor I'd prefer a WSMP type assessment based on observable actions rather than just a paper trail. It would have more substance.

    Agree it ought not be considered as a "compliance " type tool. Its far from that.

    If you want a half decent overview then the tool is fine - but as a safety practitioner we ought to be involved sufficiently in our business to know the answers.
  • Calling for focus group participants - Companies who use labour hire / temporary work agencies
    Suggest you also contact the Recruitment and Consulting Services Association (RCSA) - the body that looks after professional agencies in that industry.

    I can't make it to the Focus Group but feel free to PM me a set of questions and I'll respond
  • Self identification on the Forum
    Doxing is a worse scourge. Our only worry should be the content/quality of posts, not the posters (though some here do like to play the messenger, rather than the message)
  • Paracetamol in First Aid Kits
    And to stay on topic it might be worth referencing Australia since they are much more up to date on safety than we are - that's why we copied their Act. From their Model code of Practice First Aid they say

    "Medication, including analgesics such as paracetamol and aspirin, should not be included in first aid kits because of their potential to cause adverse health effects in some people including asthmatics, pregnant women and people with medical conditions. The supply of these medications may also be controlled by drugs and poisons laws. Workers requiring prescribed and over-the-counter medications should carry their own medication for their personal use as necessary."
  • Expiry Dates on Training
    Some occupations / tasks have stipulated Code or Regulation type expiry dates. As we know Forklifts = 3 years. For us, we reckon, in our risk environment, our people could do with a refresher, to bring matters back to front of mind, every 2 years. Hasno Regs have 5 years for Certified Handlers. 5 years is fine for us.

    In the absence of Code/Regulation it is for you to consider your risk and set your own time limits to ensure your people are trained and safe.

    It gets a bit complicated when you have training providers (Such as First Aid) put a two year limit on their training, but if you look at literature, such as the Australian Code they reckon 3 yeas is fine. So in this instance you adhere to the training provider standards

    Like most things its situation dependent and you need to make your own call - worksafe won't ping you if you can show you are managing a risk through training. The time limit will, broadly, become irrelevant because if they come to investigate a serious accident there will be more apparent factors/fault that led to the issue.
  • Tips on using the Forum
    Cool. Thanks for that - a feature I'll make a lot of use of!