Thank you for that - I'm going to go and check!

Sorry, Steve, I don't know what a tally plate is.... :-(

I have not had much to do with this project directly. My partner bought the charger. This is actually our second charger - the first one would charge his Tesla but not my i3, so he sold the first one and bought a different charger. He organised removal of the first charger, installation of the new charger, and coordinated everything along the way with a qualified electrician, who wired the charger in properly under the house and into the board inside the house etc. The electrician advised us when installing the first charger that the charger needed its own RCD, which he installed for us. He then had to sign everything off before we could start using it. We are finding it very handy.

Steve - here's the charging station my partner had installed on the rear deck of our house. He carefully made a wooden pedestal, which he treated with a protective oil designed for outdoor marine use and fitted the hooks for hanging the cable. The switch was installed at the side and the charger was wired into the house from the pedestal. You will see that the pedestal stands outside, but it is located where it is pretty well protected from the weather and out of sight.

Your thoughts?

My partner and I now both drive electric vehicles. He bought a Tesla charger that would charge both our vehicles (his is a Tesla 3, mine is a BMW i3). He got permission from the landlord to have an electrician install the charger on the rear deck of the house. We had to have an RCD installed to make it safe, and as I understand it (I haven't been directly involved in making the arrangements), part of our set-up included being able to lock the charger when not in use. The entire set-up was certified by the electrician before we could use it. It is a much safer arrangement than trying to charge a vehicle by a plug-in charger sitting on a bedroom windowsill overnight, as well as being very conveniently located in the driveway next to the house.

As one previous manager put it, why would we want to keep calling attention to our failures??

I won the Betty Crocker Family Leader of Tomorrow Award for my high school, which led to winning the Home Economics Award and being voted Most Likely to Succeed by my graduating class.

I went on to complete a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry / general business while working full-time at international chemical giant Dow Corning Corporation - by the time I graduated, I had 4 years work experience behind my degree. But then fate intervened when I met a NZ-born expatriate of nearby Dow Chemical Company and ended up following him back to Melbourne, then accompanying him to NZ.

Another surprising and little known fact is that I decided to start taking ballet lessons in my mid-thirties after talking to a shop assistant while buying ballet shoes for my daughter, who was 3 years old at the time. As a child, I had always longed to learn to dance and be graceful, while my family teased me mercilessly about being such a klutz! I later realised I had been living in my head and dragging my body around, with very little connection to my feet. It was a long and very challenging process, but an amazing teacher persevered with me, and the physical experience allowed me to deeply integrate all the personal development work I had been doing up until that time. So when the teacher announced that we were going to have a performance for only invited guest (family and friends), I knew this would be my opportunity to test myself - could I actually dance while people were looking at me? I had grown up as the "gray, invisible middle child" who stayed out of sight and under the radar because it was safe.

When the moment came to perform, my focus was entirely on the audience and their experience, not on my own body or movements. I discovered something really magical - when I focused on them, my mind went entirely quiet! This experience has served me well in so many ways ever since!

So much depends on the perspective and mind-set of the auditor. I have seen a few (VERY few!) very good auditors who go beyond just "ticking the boxes" and dig more deeply into behaviour and culture - those few offer very good value to organisations that genuinely value their people and want to ensure their safety. Others get too caught up on literal interpretation of the standards and either use their 'authority' as an auditor to impose their own (mostly narrow) interpretation or miss really important issues because they "can't see the forest for the trees".

In addition, I have come to realise that in very many ways safety - or "non-safety" is actually a symptom of other organisational issues further up the chain. Safety, along with quality, productivity, even employee engagement, is actually a byproduct of effective systems, processes and culture. A lot of these elements need to be understood more deeply and applied more specifically in each particular context in order to deliver the desired results. So getting value from an audit means using an auditor who understands these factors at a much deeper level and can apply the principles of the audit framework requirements to different organisations, industries and cultures.

There is quite an inclination to want to "standardise" and make things uniform across the board for everyone, but that is not a real-world experience.

There is work to be done!

When I worked at Ports of Auckland, we implemented a tailored injury prevention programme we called PortFit. It was designed to prevent manual handling injuries for stevedores, but it was widely embraced by all parts of the business.

The programme was designed by Dr Keith Hammond, based on biomechanical principles. His LineFit programme for electrical linesmen won the Supreme Safety Award in 2011.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/probiomech/?originalSubdomain=nz

Key principles of his approach include understanding the nature of work tasks and the stress they put on the body. After determining these, he develops a fitness training programme to strengthen key parts of the body - most notably core strength - and then aims to use the same equipment workers use to do their work to do their exercises in suitable area within the workplace, such as in a corner of a warehouse (Ports of Auckland was able to develop dedicated facilities in unused office space, and the CEO committed to buying gym equipment).

Participants are required to commit to completing a 12-week programme, attending a minimum of 3x per week. Participants complete a set of assessments at the start and again at the end to assess progress - a fitness test, body measurements, photos, and a well-being questionnaire.

At Ports of Auckland, there was so much interest and enthusiasm after the first programme that we also ran a maintenance programme alongside new intakes. We also experienced a lot of other benefits, including people making a lot more cross-functional connections, more cameraderie, improved communication, and more awareness and interest in general wellbeing initiatives, such as nutrition, healthy eating, fatigue, weight management, etc. We even found ourselves the subject of a TV3 news story at one point!

If you can, identify current users of the systems you are considering, and go and talk with them about it. Get them to show you how it works and ask them what works well and what doesn't work well. Don't rely on just a sales presentation - they can bedazzle you with a slick presentation, but you want to know how well the platform works and other related issues like how responsive the provider is, how good the service is, how helpful they are with issues and requests for modifications (very few platforms really work perfectly for everyone "as is").

Make sure you do your due diligence on the provider as well as the platform itself - you're setting up a long-term relationship with them when you sign onto their product.

Yes, and also rather than simply creating digital versions of long-time hard copy documents and processes, it's a great opportunity to reassess what you really need in the digital age and re-think some processes. Pre-digital systems had different needs for communication, etc that are often no longer necessary with digital communication tools and updated thinking.

Thank you for taking time to read the article Steve.

It does not appear that such a system would have helped the son of my German friends, who was working for a prominent German company that had not implemented even the most basic safety management systems. The hapless forklift driver whose well-intended actions resulted in their son's fatal injury received a modest fine but will have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life. The company, meanwhile, has never been held to account, and they essentially avoided all contact with the family after their son's death. The parents have been actively campaigning for more corporate accountability and safer workplaces.

I wrote an article a while ago about their experience on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/remembering-malte-hilger-sheri-greenwell/

PS - If there are updates or substantial changes in theory and practice (as often happens with first aid practices), then there is a case for requiring everyone to have training on those updates.

This discussion brings to mind a very important and usually overlooked point. The requirement is almost always training / refresher training, not competence.

Training is only an input, not a guarantee of results (an analogy: an investment of your hard-earned money may or may not result in making a profit!). Training is only one of a suite of learning and development tools available to address performance.

We should be starting with a proper learning needs analysis, which should identify specific behaviours and measurable performance factors required of forklift operators - i.e., what specific skills or competencies do operators require, and how will you verify these?

Next, we need to ask what information people don't know already and need to know to be able to do their job. The solution for this is to provide training.

If people know what they are supposed to do but don't perform according to the required standard, we need to determine whether they just need more practice, or they need coaching to overcome some obstacles. If a person already knows what they need to know but don't get opportunities to practice, or are hindered by attitudes, assumptions, etc, it is pointless to send them to a training course thinking that anything will change.

Likewise, it is a terrible waste of time and money to send people who already know what they need to know and are already doing the work all the time to a suitable level of performance to training courses!

If we developed a robust competency framework, including performance standards, why couldn't people just be assessed periodically against a standard to verify continued competency???

A well-formed competency assessment would serve as a reminder anyway, and anyone who doesn't meet the required standards could then be reviewed to determine whether they need practice, coaching or a refresher.

But of course, there are a lot of agencies with a vested interest in continuing to require the full training.....

Most standard courses seem to follow a standard format based on very low level competency requirements such as being able to regurgitate facts without any verification of genuine understanding or application of what they are meant to know. That's because most training on Unit Standards is largely assessed by exam questions that are primarily designed to assure the person passes the assessment and gets their certificate so the training provider gets their money. I once attended a training where the "trainer" basically stood at the front and told us which section of the training notes to read next, section by section - no explanation or discussion. Then we did a short written assessment - a set of simple multiple choice questions. Then we each took the EWP up and down once, then we were signed off.

So just like they say about the computer, GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. Training that is put together and delivered by providers with little grasp of neuroscience and principles of learning and instructional design usually misses the mark on delivering genuine competence. Just because you have some technical "expertise" and experience doesn't necessarily result in useful learning outcomes.

Poorly designed training, put together without appropriately relevant learning objectives and outcomes, repeated periodically - it is just wrong on so many levels - wasting everyone's time, money, attention, good will, etc.

Check out Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning [url=http:// https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/]https://tips.uark.edu/using-blooms-taxonomy/[/url] for better descriptions of levels of competency, and we really are overdue for doing some in-depth review and updates of this framework.

Also, on a bit of a side note, please avoid the temptation to regurgitate all the training content in your workplace forklift operational procedures - it creates unnecessary clutter when you already have a policy of limiting operation to trained and certified operators!!

It would make very good sense to include expectations for ongoing health monitoring for all new contracts. But NZ's ERA legislation also means that existing workers (especially long-serving employees who have many years if service) cannot have a new contractual requirement imposed on them without an appropriate consultation process.....what to do, eh?!??

That's preposterous!!

I would create a navigational guide that can assist the auditor to find what they are looking for. I always say the auditor doesn't live here, but YOU do.

It's absolutely vital that the system is set up to support the business, not just to make life easy for the auditors - we pay auditors to think, apply, interpret, probe and verify against the criteria, not to dictate the structure.

I like to think of the organisation's management system as a single building with multiple entrances; you can provide different stakeholders with different navigational strategies that all link into the same management system that is already established and proven effective.

In the past, I have used hyperlinked documents to assist auditing. You could also set up a page on the intranet that links to your existing management system but is organised with links that relate to the relevant standard for ease of auditing.

It's also an important consideration that different auditors have different perspectives and hobby horses. What's to say if you set the system up to suit one auditor that it would necessarily suit a different auditor at a different time??

At the end of the day, if we start shaping our systems for passing audits instead of what works for the organisation, we are headed down a slippery slope.

It's complicated....

This is another example where HSWA, Employment Relations Act and Human Rights Act collide.

While requirements for vaccinations can be included in new employment contracts, the requirement cannot be unilaterally imposed on workers, particularly where the person objects on the basis of health or religious beliefs, and employers cannot discriminate against people who don't wish to be vaccinated. Likewise, any changes to existing conditions of employment require consultation and agreement under the ERA.

Reading between the lines, I think there is a reasonable argument for conducting a practical and meaningful risk assessment to justify any demands for everyone to be vaccinated.

A World Cafe style activity with a skilled, independent facilitator could be a good way of going about this. Having someone from outside the business facilitate allows managers and the H&S team to participate as equals. Organise some relevant questions for participants to brainstorm in small groups and get them to mingle for subsequent questions, with time allocated at the end to return to their original group, share what they learned, consolidate, then each group present back to the big group. Collect ideas on poster paper or long rolls of paper during the event, then gather these up at the end to write up as session notes, then distribute to all participants.

When conducted properly, the World Cafe style event combines all the best elements of small groups, brainstorming, and presenting positive and constructive ideas that can be developed into projects and plans.

Just to further stimulate discussion on this thread....H&S covers a lot of ground and a lot of possibilities of specialist technical information. How much should we expect any one generalist safety practitioner to know, and where is the correct place for technical specialists?

In my own case, I tend to think of my role as being aware of when specialist and more in-depth technical expertise is called for, and to leverage my professional network to get advice and a second opinion where appropriate, rather than trying to figure it all out on my own.

The answer is....yes and no!

I am not much a fan of absolute binaries for describing things, especially when it is clear that most polarities exist on some form of continuum (e.g. MBTI characteristics, situational leadership, etc). Most people will have a "comfort zone" along that continuum, with preferences for a certain aspect that may be more fixed or more flexible - think of it as being a bit like being left-handed, right-handed or ambidextrous; some people can only use one hand and find the other a bit uncoordinated and useless, while others may cheerfully swap from one hand to the other with great ease (I used to watch someone do that on the tennis court to avoid having to hit a backhand shot!).

I have long contemplated the apparent "disconnect" between the concept of health and safety being about "keeping people safe"....and the actual real-world approach adopted by most traditional organisations, in which the primary focus of safety programmes is prevention of incidents in which assets and / or reputation could be damaged, including legal penalties, and people are still generally (if unconsciously) thought of in terms of their work output than as individuals.

Safety management itself could benefit from some meaningful root cause analysis to better understand its failings / shortcomings and opportunities to improve.

The technical requirements, as underscored by both Craig and Derek, are absolutely critical in high hazard workplace environments. And the correct place for these technical skills and competencies is primarily in design, planning, and guidance on risk assessment, communication and training, and supporting development of appropriate management systems.

The people requirements are absolutely vital for conveying critical safety requirements from the design and planning element of the organisation to implementation and BAU activities. Understanding people and the diversity of their values, needs, capabilities, etc is essential for everything from getting the right people for the work to be done safely (ie recruitment and selection, fit for the organisation and task, etc), developing teamwork and communication networks, and particularly for effective development of worker knowledge and skills.

Far too often, "training" is a critical failure point because technical experts are tasked with delivering information, precisely because of their technical expertise, but the technical experts lack the people skills and understanding of effective LEARNING processes and neurological factors, resulting in workers who have been "certified" but are NOT actually genuinely competent in functional ways. This also arises because training has not been designed and developed according to effective instructional design principles, including clarity about the appropriate logical levels of competency to be achieved and how these will be assessed - those paper-based assessments are often not worth much more than the paper they are written on.

There are actually at least 7 types or stages of learning processes, a range of sensory channels and preferences, individual personality types, values world views, and many other individual characteristics and variables, which then also have to consider the context of the organisation's culture and values, the industry in which the business operates, the actual workplace conditions, etc. These will never be addressed in a "one size fits all" approach, and burying one's head in the sand because of its complexity will only perpetuate the problems. Yes, it is complex, and no, it's not really something you can do once and "put on automatic" - that is why we are still struggling with it!

To successfully navigate all these individual human factors, a safety practitioner really needs to have a pretty good grasp of the full spectrum, with the ability to responsively "flex" between technical and people skills according to requirements of the current context. This in turn is likely to vary according to a number of other external factors..... I've often suggested that my role is more like being a bridge between the most technical elements and key requirements, and the people who do the work. I make a point of understanding the purpose of safety requirements, use my skills and experience to develop rapport and trust, and figure out what each person needs. I figure out their obstacles and help them to find solutions that work for them, without taking over and creating more barriers and obstacles!

Ultimately, only an individual can truly keep themselves safe, because I can't be everywhere and I don't have any remote controls for other individuals. All I can do is to help others to become aware, understand, commit and develop constructive mindsets. If I try to impose too much technical requirements without respecting their needs, I will only create resistance and make my job that much harder.