The expectation is that operators of all plant used for commercial purposes will have the appropriate licence and be assessed for competency for the reason Alex gave above (i.e. qualification does not = competency). I'll try and give a run down of what we do in civil construction...

The question is what would be reasonable in terms of competency assessment for each driver?
If you take a quick look around the interwebs you'll see a variety of assessment templates. These are usually based on reasonable activity that the operator would be likely to face while operating the machine (ground conditions, type of task (pushing up vs loading out etc), pre start, emergency response etc etc etc) - It's not usually a half-page tick and flick exercise.

A good assessment will also have a rating scale for the driver, 1: being something like 'needs direct supervision' through to say 5: Expert. Able to assess others.

Does each driver need to be assessed on each type of machine they drive (ie digger, tractor, truck) or should they be assessed separately for each type of machine?
CTO per piece of plant is something that has become a standard 'best practice' in civil construction. (yes, some companies even do the Ride on Mower CTO)


Frequency of assessment - I've seen some places conduct an assessment annually, is this too frequent? or not enough? Would a one-off assessment be enough?
I guess ongoing assessments are like CPD... you need to show that you are maintaining a level of competency. The frequency of re-assessments is up to the company. In most of the cases I know of, the auditors and clients are only comparing what is written in a procedure/policy/plan with what the company is doing in the real world.

In the assessment rating there is often a reassessment recommendation.
1 = reassess in 1 month, to 5 = reassess in 3/4/5 years.
Most operators get to Level 4 - able to operate without supervision. Reassess in 2 years (or something)

Pros and cons of assessments conducted in house versus external provider?
This is a bit curly as for independance you'd think external is the way to go, but a lot of external assessors have shied away from CTO assessments because they can't physically see the operator working in all the conditions they'd need to, to be confident of what they were signing off. For example, if a digger driver is being assessed excavating from a face on flat ground, the assessor can't assess how they dig a trench. To have an external assessor take the four-five hours over several different scenarios per operator would be uneconomic for a start.
(Hmmm... I have an idea - anyone have an old quarry they want used as a sandpit?)

A-hem... anyway...
Bigger companies have dedicated trainer/assessors who are constantly moving between sites observing and training/assessing. Smaller companies chose one or more of their experienced operators as the assessor. These are often the ones with good techniques who are also know the other operators so have a history of a variety of situations on which to do the assessment.

I know that was a blog post (sorry) but that's what I've found over the last few years :)

Thanks Craig and understood in the context given, but the client representative is asking for these lists weeks and sometimes months before the job even starts. I can understand them needing evidence of competency within the organisation but feel that having the individual names is irrelevant.

That's why I quite like the number idea - the client rep can see we have competent people without actually being able to see the details of the individuals.

I have to admit, like most industries, ours is huge, but one where competency is gold and turnover can be ridiculously high. Many of our client reps are also dealing with our competitors so a part of me also doesn't particularly trust where details of that list will end up once it leaves our control. #cynical :)

Of course the individual names become relevant once the job has started and we are allocating resourcing to specific tasks, which is why we have a full copy of the register on site.

They're wanting the lists as a part of every HSMP and SSSP we do... so I'm liking the number idea!
:)

Thanks guys - along the same lines; how do we feel about clients insisting we give them our training matrices and/or list of worker competencies (with worker names attached)?

Gut says no - for the same reasons as above... but just checking.

And if we say 'no' what could we give as a compromise/sweetener?

Never Mind...

For those with a similar question (or just for interests sake) go to:
The Privacy Act 2020, Part 3, Principles 10 and 11
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/LMS23376.html

It would be an interesting argument saying you decided not to use something the maker of the plant/equipment deemed necessary. — Robb

And if you are having to say "we didn't think we needed to because [enter reason] " then there is a good chance that something untoward has happened...

Highly recommend Chernobyl and Deepwater Horizon.

Some of the ones I've found since the OP:

• Bhopal - a Prayer for Rain - massive gas leak from a Union Carbine factory in India - Latest movie not available on Prime in NZ ( :( )but a good doco is here: https://youtu.be/HsuUQzhP2Ds
• Fukishima: (nuclear)
• DeBruce Grain Elevator (dust explosion)
• Three Mile Island (nuclear)
• Tianjin Explosions and Investigation Here (mixed haz subs)
• Unstoppable (Chris Pine and Denzel Washinston) - based on a true story of a runaway train.(Google Movies)
• Sully (Tom Hanks): The story behind that awesome landing in the Hudson.(Netflix, Google Movies)
• Imperial Sugar Dust Explosion
• As mentioned before there are a massive variety of chemical -related investiagtions on the USCSB channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIkr0SRTnZO4_QpZozvCCA
• Graniteville Train Crash (Chlorine)
• Piper Alpha Doco
• Titanic - New Evidence Doco

Feel free to update with any others you've seen or want to see :)

Most software options are a variation on excel anyway so just adding my vote to the combine option.

If that doesn't work for the reporting side then instead of using more spreadsheets open new tabs.
Take a look at the (very) basic one I've done. Everything in the description column automatically gets copied into the risk register (cause it's waaaaay easier to manipulate and delete than add stuff) and then the CAs are red if not done green if done :)

WooHoo, that's exactly the usage we want and awesome that it's working for you guys. At this point it's probably a little too relaxed security and time intensive administratively for our crew and company but as we mature with this having individual department groups could be an idea - thanks :)

Yes on fun and multi-platforms!

Just for anyone who's interested;
We looked at WhatsApp as it's a more secure platform but the apps constant need for data and storage made it impractical for 99% of our users.

We're currently trialling the Microsoft Teams function. Several of the departments started using these over lockdown so it's a logical next step plus it works well on desktops and mobiles without too much data-drag.

I suspect it may be an additional 'information dissemination' tool rather than the interactive discussion, but then it might be the digital-baby-steps we need before we go full fb.

Will let you know how we get on.

:)

How much do you think the catastrophic nature of Whaakari and potentially catastrophic nature of Covid 19 played a part in the reorientation of the service and how much of what has been done do you think will 'stick' when it's all over (or at least until the next catastrophe).

I know that sounds cynical, but history shows that adaptive capacity is massive at time like these and then fatigue wears in (as do the economic flow on effects)... so I'm interested in how to maintain the momentum so we don't go back to relying solely on amazingly adaptive workers. :)

Hi Carl

Do you feel that having a system that is adaptable (geared for things to go well) and active followership has also increased the capacity of the unit to handle events that don't go as well (or which may stretch the boundaries of humanly possible - ie pandemic prep+ 'normal' critical care).

Might be a silly question, but have they looked at the SafePlus free self-auditing tool?

Simple to use, uses plain language and developed by the regulators ... :)
https://online.safeplus.nz/

Thanks Hillary and Peter - great stuff as always :)

So I think we need to provide leaders with a sound, easy way to pulse check were their people sit on the mental health continuum. Happy to talk to you about some ideas I have on this. — Hillary Bennett

Peter - I feel a webinar coming on - pleasepleasepleaseplease :)

Are many places tracking illness (from any cause) and relating that back to any workplace influences?

I know it's ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen if the absentee list was analysed from the 'have we had a part in this?' angle, rather than the usual 'they've got problems /need to eat better/lack resilience' angle

Mental health is such a massive subject!

Although it is great to see business getting on board for a week or two each year and bullying reports starting to filter through to the HS teams, it is also frustrating to see the disconnect between people who are concerned about mental health and who also work as a lifestyle choice where 'busy' and 'stressed' are not just expectations but badges of honour for supervisors and managers.

How do we even start to have the conversations and attempt to close that inter-generational gap where Gen X and older 'live to work' as they lambast Millenials and younger who actually have the right idea that work is only a part of the life equation?

As an example; ten years ago the 60 hour-week was a BIG week. now it's an unwritten expectation for anyone who looks toward furthering their career.

How do we market the idea that having the personnel capacity to allow for that balance in life is just as important as having the correct guards on our machines?

[Facepalm]
[pours bourbon]

Hi Mark

As well as implementing all the controls for on site, (spitting/sneezing/coughing openly in the carpark is classed as on site and the person would undergo some sort of disciplinary as appropriate) we've also made the requirement for workers to follow lockdown rules off site very clear (through posters, inductions, one-point-lessons, mini-toolboxes,videos etc, plus the messaging from the Govt and the possible $1,000 fine).

Workers are required to fill in a declaration form before coming on site each day to confirm that they;

• do not have a cough, cold or covid-19 symptoms
• have only gone home (or essential services) when not at work.
• have not [physically] interacted with anyone outside their bubble. If the answer to this is that they have, then the worker has to declare who and whether distancing was practiced.

The above listed is paraphrased and yes, for the most part it works as an informant, deterrant, and when we get our first case, will also be useful for contact tracing. It is also the best we can do without encroaching anyones privacy any more than neccessary under current circumstances.

New workers coming into the site have to undergo a standard medical and a covid-specific health check and of course the accompanying declarartion form. Plus the off site requirements are as part of the induction and training.

Depending on the job they've come from, new workers may be asked to isolate for 14 days. A worker coming in from the healthcare sector would be an example where this was required.

Hope that helps :)

Hi Matt - Happy Easter

It comes under the evidencial requirements for the attached (from the MPI website) and is directed by people far more experienced with MPI and the Govt requirements than me (and I suspect possibly you as well). Much like WorkSafe's website, it's all vague advice - until you've worked with them enough to understand the expectations that lie in the silence between words.

That said, my initial response was to Campbell's question of 'who and how' re Thermal Testing. I know there are other businesses who are considering, or are in the process of implementing, thermal testing. Some of them may be represented on this forum and they may want to add their 'who and how' knowledge or questions here without fear of the many opinions around the 'why'.

If there are any further pro-cons of thermal testing to be discussed should it probably be done in a new thread? :)

(sigh) The risk we're dealing with is not the health one, it's the economic and then the flow on health and safety risks.

Let me break it down for you... The site I work at currently has 1,500 people breaking their bubbles every day to provide NZ, Aus and Japan mainstream food items.

50+% of our workforce of 1,500 being unable to work at staggered stages for two weeks at a time over the next gosh-knows how many months during the busiest part of the year.
+ demand from NZ, Aus and Japan for the products we provide.
= supermarket shelves in NZ, Aus and Japan empty of the multiple ranges of long-lasting, great-in-a-state-of-emergency foodsuffs we provide.

(We've already broken the 25% absenteeism mark through fear and/or precautionary measures)

As I've said before, this isn't about the 'health risk' as such. It's about protecting the food supply chain (while maintaining some 'semblence of sanity). :)


Thank you - I suspect you're right in that nothing much changes from the controls we already have in place, but hadn't thought of the sanitiser in the warden kit - awesome :)


Yusss - 4 days of isolated bliss where you don't have to feel guilty for wanting to ignore the world, curl up in a ball and go to sleep :)