Yes, just had an ACC/AEP pre-audit, which didn't seem much different (in structure) than the ACC WSMP one. Not impressed so far.

Brilliant, thanks.

Hi Sheri, could you also please e-mail me a copy of the info you are sending to Kimberley Schofield? jonojohnsonatyahoodotcom, many thanks indeed!

Thanks mate.

Hi Wayne, sorry for the delay in replying (I know, a year, right?). The issue wasn't about the rusk, the risks were well enough known (see my reply to Andrew above). The issue was, without going into any further detail, "management related" and in the end I solved it. I managed to get management to understand the requirement for everyone to wear safety glasses whilst on the floor.

Hello all,

Thanks very much for your very helpful & informative comments, they're all very much appreciated indeed.

In the end I solved the problem (& others) myself - I left.

Cheers to all,

Jono

Gotta be a credit to the fleet manager & maintenance team if the company's still got vehicles that old still on the road :wink: :grin:

Nice one Matt, however when I read the question I was left sitting here thinking jeez, how long has the health and safety game been afoot in NZ, and how long have we - and by "we" I mean NZ business/industry/PCBUs/whatever - known about the requirement to identify hazards & near misses etc. and yet here we are after so many years down the track providing the same answers to the same questions. Even Andrew gave the same answers! Sigh...:sad:

I'm going to buck the trend here and say there's no problem doing that, as long as you explain the requirement properly to the contractor/visitor. Had exactly that scenario in a previous life - employees wore fluoro yellow hi-viz and visitors / contractors wore orange. Was successful because the employees then new that anyone in orange was not a "regular" and was also a potential hazard (even when an escorted visitor). And in the case of contractors, depending on the job they were doing, by differentiating the colour of Hi-viz, employees could make an instant assessment of whether or not the contractor was compliant with our other PPE requirements (hardhat, glasses etc.)
Yes in an ideal world PPE could be seen as an admission of failure or limited value, however there are circumstances where regardless of what you think, you have no choice e.g. corporate standards. Suck it and see, Michael!

"Operators are to ensure they have a clear view of the path ahead of them"

@ Aaron & Sheri: Quite right IMO and in practice not hard to do so long as you have someone capable of administering that. Also, sometimes you don't have a choice but to do refresher training e.g. as part of a prequal (yes, I said the "P" word!) where the clients demand not only that your staff undergo refresher training but demand proof of it as well e.g. 1st aid refreshers, overhead crane refreshers etc.

Probably because that 20% of the workforce is at home stoned...

Best intro to a comment EVER! "In my work with Rocket Lab..." - you win :lol:

Do it mate!

Hi Tania, Congrats on The Grad Dip! I'm keen to have a look, alanataec1989dotcodotnz ,cheers!

Me too Chris, can you put up a link to that info please?

believe me you are not the first one to think that Graham, and I doubt you'll be the last. Sometimes even as a so-called H&S "professional" I have a hard time reconciling how much training costs in some cases. Like anything though, I guess, there is a genuine need for external training providers and some of them do provide good value for money, yet on the other hand it seems to me that H&S training is purely a license for some people to print money.
As an example though, for some of our competencies e.g. WAH, HARM & Confined Spaces, we are required by some clients to refresh our staff and if they are not current then they will not be allowed on site. On the other hand, some of our gantry crane operators have been trained to the US & certified but we don't refresh them because they don't move out of the workshop.

Hi Jo,

In a previous life the business I was working for used "Intelex". It can be a big a beast as you want or scaled right back to as small or the lesser amount of input that you want. Once I got the hang of it I loved it.

First world problems IMO. The soldiers I served with in Bosnia in 1995/96 didn't have any gatorade or electrolytes when they were foot patrolling in 15+kg of body armour, not including weapon, ammo & kevlar helmet, in 20+ degree heat. They seemed to do okay with only water.

Apologies in advance for the rather abrupt reply but are we not all adults here? Do we not all put our big boy & big girl pants on in the morning before we go to work? Jeez. If you have panadol in your medkits, or on the H&S Reps shelf, or in the secretary's draw or wherever-the-hell it is, thus freely available to workers, this does not count as 1st-aiders (or anyone else) "prescribing" medication.
If businesses want to have panadol available for workers (so long as it's correctly monitored or whatever, blah blah, or even if it's not!) they are allowed to.
What's the big deal about someone, in this particular instance, taking something that is readily available from any supermarket? Or something that you give your 10 year old kid when they come to you & say "Mum/Dad, I have a headache". Or when you take your baby to the doctor and he/she prescribes pamol for it - not such a big deal then I bet. Or when YOU go to the doctor and he/she hands you over a PRESCRIPTION for a pkt of 100 panadol for $3 and straight away you think "Awesome, now I don't have to pay $3.99 for 20 at Countdown".

Please tell me the reason for not having panadol in workplace1st aid kits is not because of the worry that someone is going to take all of it and OD on it? It's not is it?