• wearing a harness
    so why is the fitting and wearing of a harness not covered in the knuckle boom training?
  • wearing a harness
    thanks heaps team - helpful comments
  • wearing a harness
    Thanks Jane - I guess I would be ok with training that didn't have a US if there was clear evidence of some sort of moderation and evidence to show what level that person has been trained to?
  • What vaccinations do you give your staff and why?
    or the other way around I guess. What are the risks I am faced with when I do this task - what controls can i put in place. If there is exposure to sewerage what controls would I put in place to prevent getting exposed. What else can I do if the controls fail? Sort of like getting a secondary control in place. Primary control is to avoid the exposure - secondary control for when the primary control fails. Hope that makes sense - did in my head,
  • What vaccinations do you give your staff and why?
    This should come from your risk register
  • to ISO or not to ISO
    wow .... I am gaining a healthy appreciation for ISO since my earlier post, but ..... I am still finding that a lot of companies are using it as a tick in the box and their workers know nothing of the requirements. A recent audit was done with one of our subbies. They had ISO - but had some terrible practices in the worksite. They had no knowledge of the procedures they should be following - even the basics such as SWMS were terrible. A challenge to keep it all real and value add
  • Legality on company ToolBox Meetings
    Often our guys don't minute every meeting (at least weekly ones are minuted or any high risk pre-start meetings) - but often take a photo showing everyone that is there
  • Pedestrian/Traffic Management Solution consultants
    hope all going well for you - interesting times to be working in safety :-)
  • White Island Volcanic Eruption and Dialogue About Risk
    all good points - I will be very interested to see what sort of knee jerk reaction NZ takes. There is one other point that I want to throw in the pot - and this is not intended to stir things - but ....
    I was quite embarrassed to say I am a safety professional after watching the interview with the chopper pilot that was not allowed to go back and get the bodies because of safety reasons. This is a guy who had just left the island with a load of survivors, knew the landscape, knew the risks, was experienced - yet someone remotely was doing their own risk assessment and they get to make the final call. This to me is a group of well meaning people that use case studies and data they have - but do not have the 'feel' of the individuality of this event. I get the whole thing of rescuers being exposed to undue risk - but really. Some recent events in NZ have created a lot of change - but not all of it has been good - and our stats support that. Surely a plan could of been made with those closest to the site, a risk assessment made, people kitted up with good PPE, and those bodies brought home to their families before the environment decays the bodies any more. This rescue stinks of the same mistakes from Pike River in my mind
  • Availability of good candidates to fill H&S roles
    My biggest gripe is around the lack of opportunities for people starting out in the safety space. Most employers are very nervous so want experienced people - but how do you get experience in NZ?? I have heard from a few people now that have gone overseas to entry level roles that they couldn't get here in NZ. I was also recently guilty of recruiting someone from overseas over a NZer - a first for me but it just come down to team fit and experience to help deliver a very aggressive plan. I wasn't so much looking for a person that had experience in safety - but more a person who would be a great change agent. Anyone can learn safety skills - but hard to teach someone how to create change and do it with personality ....
  • New thinking in health & safety - community of practice
    wow - love the excitement, my first reaction was to "count me in" - but recently I have seen clients / stakeholders and even our own awesome company trying to support current forums and just spend time with passionate people who want to make change - but are re-inventing ideas and have no one in the room who can actually make key decisions. The good thing is that we all want some change and are prepared to be part of that change. The problem is that there are a number of groups already doing that in isolation. One of the things I noticed a while back is that when something is broken - it is often easier to create something else than to fix the problem. So now there are safety people all over the place creating more complexity and processes to support broken processes. Then we expect people who are great at 'doing' to understand and use all of our 'thinking'. In NZ we can't even agree to standard measures / definitions (LTIFR, TRIFR, medical treatment etc). So how do we know what is really broken and where to start??
  • Draft Construction Lag Indicators for Consultation
    Hi Chris - I have noticed that SiteSafe are doing the same thing - be really good if the two bodies were working together with this. there really needs to be alignment across the industry - not the creation of yet another measure / or a different set of definitions (especially around what is medical treatment, and what is included in the TRIFR)
  • H&S Committtee Objectives
    thanks heaps for sharing Steve - this is a hard one but I like what you have done
  • Definition of "high potential"?
    I struggle with potential for fatality. Every incident has the potential to be a fatality. IE: I could trip on the mat and nearly fall - or I could trip on the same mat, fall smack my head on something and die. Once an incident has occurred we rely on our controls to reduce the likelihood that it will be a fatality - if there are no controls - we rely on luck. High potential vs high likelihood - I guess it comes down to the language that the end users of the process understand and are used to. As a safety person - anything that is identified as having any potential to hurt, is assessed and controls put in place with an end goal of reducing the likelihood and the severity. High potential with the thinking around severity seems to be a lost opportunity??
  • H&S Committtee Objectives
    This is a hard one - especially for the construction environment where our reps are on different sites all the time. Some of the objectives I have seen mentioned above are really hard to measure - in my experience - if you can't measure you can't tell if you have made a difference or not - and that is a very important part of objectives and reward and recognition. we are trying to align with lead indicators (inspections, near miss reporting, audits, observations and safety dialogues). These are easy to measure and hopefully the output of this activity is a reduction in incidents causing harm. I have learnt over the years that one glove doesn't fit everyone and really important "to hunt where the ducks are"
  • to ISO or not to ISO
    Thanks for that - really good feedback