I The survey is now closed. And given the sensitivity of the data we ask for, we don't ask for an email address (or a name or the organisation you work for etc.)

Thanks to everyone who completed the survey. There were more than 500 responses, which is a record!
We are now busy analysing the results, which will be published in full in the Sept/Oct edition of Safeguard magazine in early October. A brief summary will also appear here on the Forum.

To help inform the original question, attached FYI is Dr Alexandra Muthu's piece in the magazine.

This story from a Coroner's report from March is worth reading on this topic.

Chris, you are far too kind and my ears may have blushed. That the awards given to you, Anna and Sonya were well deserved was reflected in the response from the audience on the night. As for who contributed to the work required to run the awards, I acknowledged the key players in this LinkedIn post a few days ago (but of course there were others involved and I thank them too.)

Good point. Anyone wishing to briefly (and anonymously) share an experience can do so here in our survey.
Re the excellent mansplaining chart, at the AIHS conference in Brisbane a couple of weeks ago Kirstin Ferguson talked about the "words to wisdom" ratio: before we speak in a meeting, we should ask ourselves how much value we will be adding per word spoken?

Four people have responded to this post so far. Three of them are blokes.
Just sayin'

At the risk of stirring the pot, rather than gym memberships and the like, wouldn't it be better for a company to address worker wellbeing at source, ie: ask people what it is about their work that leaves them feeling unwell (physically or mentally) and then work with them to experiment on making changes to work to address their concerns? (It might mean hiring more people to spread the workload, for example.)

This Forum discussion from four years (!) ago might be of interest: https://forum.safeguard.co.nz/discussion/105/page/p1

It's coming up smoko time. The mag awaits your attention (with a coffee)!

Herewith an extract from the story in the latest mag:

The key takeaway from this year’s survey is that respondents are gloomier about pretty much everything than they were last year, and generally more negative in most indicators than they have been for the last five surveys.
All but two of the 15 tracked indicators are worse than last year, and ten of the indicators are the lowest they have been in the five most recent surveys starting from 2019.
Biggest drop from last year was the question about whether WorkSafe is performing well, which has dropped ten percentage points to only 33.9%, a position now far removed from the halcyon days of 2019 when the regulator scored 61.3%.
The other big drop was the question about whether New Zealand’s H&S performance is improving, down eight percentage points from 2022 to 58.4%; going back to 2019, it was at 75.9%.
The only good news in the survey comes with the final question, which asks about discussing risks with other businesses who share the site. This went up 5.6 points from last year to reach 72.8%, which is also the highest score for that question in the last five surveys.

That info is contained (or can be inferred) in the income survey story published last year and attached as a pdf in this thread: https://forum.safeguard.co.nz/discussion/714/income-survey-2022-last-days

It's available from Amazon here

The results were published in the Sept/Oct 2022 edition of Safeguard magazine. They are attached here.

Alas, etc. If it is any consolation, the survey has always been limited to these 3 groups. And of course, if any of your students fall into one of those groups, be sure to alert them to do the survey!

(In your best Cockney voice) "Fair cop, guv'nor."
And plead guilty. :smile:

Agree - motonormativity leads us to ignore the harm caused by vehicles because we are all complicit as drivers (or even as passengers).
That's why a few years ago Safeguard began to include media reports of truck crashes resulting in death (usually to a car driver) in the work-related incidents we report in Safeguard Update newsletter.
Just to try to make the point - probably ineffectually - that trucks are driven by workers who are in control of potentially lethal mobile plant, and that "health & safety" should encompass all the issues faced by truck drivers rather than treating commercial driving as purely a road safety issue and therefore ignorable by H&S people.

This survey closes on Sunday so if you haven't already done it, now is the time!

but I already need to finish my "The answer is capitalism, just ask Rasmussen" post for that one. — MattD2

Looking forward to this post already

So why can't we replicate this success in the workplace? — Steve H

With some trepidation I venture to suggest that reducing the road toll is a much narrower and therefore less complex challenge than reducing the work toll. The factors at play - safer cars, better road design, tougher driver licencing etc - are few. The risk environment - the roads, the vehicles - is relatively well defined.

Reducing the work toll is much more challenging because the work environments where people are exposed to risk are incredibly varied and the number of risk types is much greater.

If the road toll has now plateaued and is no longer declining, the next significant step presumably is isolation/elimination by removing people from the risk exposure. How? Reduce our dependence on cars and trucks and shift to the hugely safer (and environmentally better) modes of travel, namely public transport and rail freight.

(Consumer warning: these thoughts are out of my head and are unsupported by any academic research which may or may not exist to support them.)