So that's 2 hours of my life I won't get back.

I was right.

Always useful to have the applicable sections of the Act on hand when they try to bluff their way through.

ACC now off to pay my person.

Its not a separate claim. We all agree it is the same injury

I'm not worried about the injury @Jane. I'm happy enough to accept it is related to the first injury.

Its the issue of me paying for the time off.

Snap. I had the misfortune of viewing the photos my employee sent me of his feet.

Patently obvious foot care was a class he missed at school. And his wages weren't enough to pay for clippers.

I won't post the photo's - suffice to say the images will stay with me for life.

My mistake. I had assumed the logical first solution of trying to get boots that work had already been tried.

I've just had a GP sign an employee off for two weeks due to "bruising" caused by the boots.

Employee sent me photos of his Tinea that he accepts was fixed by cream - which is what he was after from the GP.

That one was kicked right back to ACC

So I am a bit toey when it comes to medical claims related to boots. And GP's falsely (fraudulently) advocating for their patients.

Thankfully no ESG window dressing here which I consider to be one of the best "make work" schemes around.

Safety practitioners should stay well clear.

They arent fit and able to do the job. And therefore unable to mee their side of the employment agreement.

Redploy else where or terminate.

The other point I'd make is the more we bury ourselves in policies and procedures the more we are going to get tangled in them when an issue arises.

We ought not treat everyone same same. We need to be flexible and fleet enough to rise to a one off occasion and tailor make a solution for that situation - without having it apply everywhere else.

I've had one person advised they are prescribed MC.

Great. And that was about it.

Usual "impairment" requirements apply.

No change in policy (actually no policy). No busy bodying in a person private life. Still no Testing being done - not forming judgements on what people do outside work - its impairment that counts.

Done and dusted in about 60 seconds.

No Matt. But I've found if I use a large font, double spacing and wide margins I can make good use of one side of an A4 piece pf paper.

Its a real drama when I get asked for our Health and Safety policy. I have to fossick around and make one up.

I expect mine to 100% be listening to their work groups and raising the issues/ideas those people don't feel so inclined to raise otherwise

Reps doing their job and thinking they are helping keep people safe should I would have thought be incentive enough.

Our advocates (we don't allow Reps) don't get anything. The exception is if I have given them a commitment and I don't meet that commitment by the due date they get cake at our next meeting.

I have never done pre-audit work in places I have actually worked in. Don't advocate for it, don't support it. Think it is a fraudulent con.

If its a financial or Worksafe audit take us as you find us.

The purpose of the audit should be to highlight shortcomings so you can improve.

I already know I will pass because I do all the right stuff and managing that stuff just keeps happening.

(That said I am very good at window dressing - and have helped countless companies "pass" their audits. Its not hard when you have dim tick box auditors.)

One thing I have tried (unsuccessfully) to get IT to change email protocols. They seem to insist firstnamedotlastnameatcompanydotcodotnz is a good idea.

Except it is giving out personal details and makes it easier for abuse, scammers and doxing

I'm interested in how risk is seen as different depending on location. If you have the same hazard on each site, and you manage it in the same way the risk should be the same. And hopefully irrespective of having a committee or not.

I don't give employees access to the accident reports. I don't see what value this information adds to their lives or helps make us more productive.

I can't think what sites would now require them. Courts have thrown them out (in some circumstances) and given risk profile of covid now, and the number of vaccinated people who have fallen ill (and thus infectious) I can't see how a site could justify discrimination on the basis of health status.

You still have them? Should never had been a thing.

Robyn
With a change to weld fume WES we put our our team of welders and a few other workers in positive air respirators. Much to my surprise the overwhelming feed back was "we love them!'. Not one single word of complaint. I had to be picked off the floor - there's always someone that complains about change.

Some of our people will work 12 hours a day and 5 on saturdays in this gear. You'll see them walking to smoko in it. Its physical work - on their feet all day. And not a single complaint.