The usual patronising dumbing down from H&S gurus to "the workers". Cringe!
Does NOBODY creating this nonsense do some research? On the audience?

"When the contractor was assessed their ducks were lined up". Nope All it shows is that they had a good system of documents. Since neither Prequal nor Sitewise gets off their rear ends and actually goes out to where it matters: on SITE! - good documents is ALL it shows. Unlike accounting, where faulty documentation means something significant, inadequate h&s documentation means very little. Apart from TAs, Training and Competency, and pre-start toolbox talks the rest is not indicative of anything but an ability to create endless mostly useless documents and ALL OF IT can be created, managed, successfully uploaded for high prequalification success by someone sitting in an office with a keyboard. (Working for an organisation who doesn't understand 'lean and keen' and is HAPPY to employ more admin. staff.)

For example: "Sub contractor pre-selection documents"? Oh please! Unless there some huge bureaucratic ineffective communicating, overspending monolith that HAS to send documents across an office rather than speak, this is how it usually goes and it's perfectly effective with good, knowledgeable personnel:
QS to Site Manager: "what was the scaffolder like?" Site Manager: "Yeah, good bloke. Worth getting again."

In commercial construction, with my clients, every 'good' SSSP has a hazard register. Sitewise demands one, Prequal demands one. On site, NOBODY uses them, nobody reads them. The best, most immediate and most useful hazard register is an up to date site hazard board. After that TAs and regular individual sub-contractor or site wide pre-start/toolbox talks.

Sadly: TAs used to be conducted on site with the personnel concerned in the task; a useful collaborative health and safety tool. Now someone in an office types them up and the eyes of the users glaze over as they look at a daunting bunch of typing they had nothing to do with and they simply 'sign on the dotted line'. What a PITY such organisations as Prequal do not actually DEMAND that TAs are scruffy, hand scribbled,clearly Collaborative works; that pre-starts and toolbox talks are the same. As it is, a competent person can do absolutely EVERYTHING required for passing Prequal (besides collecting a few signatures) from the keyboard and the sites could all be as dangerous as a war zone.

Too many health and safety persons want to equate H&S documentation with accounting documents or even lawyers' briefs. They do not equate. It is quite possible to have the most labyrinthine, convoluted, complicated h&s documents in the world and STILL have a damn great fire on a site in the heart of a city. Documents don't create safety: culture does!

Every commercial construction site I've ever worked on has had a comprehensive Hazards Register included in its master Site Specific Safety Plan. Tucked tastily between the voluminous pages. Nobody reads it. Client, auditor, etc, just looks to see if it's there.

The most useful and practical hazard IDs are Site specific hazards identified in the Hazard Board at site entry, kept up to date and changed as the project does, and in TAs for particular tasks and particular trades, and sitewide pre-start/toolbox talks..

WorksafeNZ has some pretty good information on this Chris.
https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/understanding-the-law/volunteers/information-for-volunteers/

1. Despite the fact that we INTUITIVELY feel that investigating small incidents prevents serious ones, ("look after cents and dollars will look after themselves"??); that theory was postulated, together with a cute little pyramid with DEATH at the top, in the middle of LAST century. Has anyone EVER conducted ANY research to demonstrate its truth?
The SAFEST construction sites I audit are a) neat, well organised and tidy and b) populated by cheerful, confident workpersons. Documents? Nope! Apart from the most basic requirements of relevant training and competence, they simply don't equate at all. A good Accident Investigation can DEFINITELY dig out anything that needs to change.

2. I tell my clients: TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!
"He was an idiot"? Why did YOU not make his task "idiot proof"?;
"We aren't given the right resource?" - "Here is a list of the vital resources I asked for by formal requisition on (date!)."
NB My favourite is: "inattention" they LOVE that one! And my answer is always WHY? Beginning a difficult task before a break? Low Blood sugar? Who was supervising??

3. NOTE: (having already written something disparaging about Impac prequal i may'swell continue on a roll!) So-called 'experts' are STILL bleating about 'root cause'. This has proved to be a nonsense because EVERY cause contributes and NONE can legitimately be identified as 'root". cf (for eg) Daniel Kahneman "Thinking Fast and Slow")

If I am concerned for someone's health all I ever do is request a doctor's certificate declaring that the person concerned is fit for the work they will be doing.

Anything else, in my opinion, is a pretty gross invasion of privacy.

Apologies for the silence. I tend only to go onto the forum when Peter sends an email update. Yes, I'd be happy to be counted in!

Yup. Always, always 'worker participation' doesn't really flourish with matrices and notebooks. Particularly on worksites where frontline workers are not particularly comfortable with the written word.

Approaching others? Yes, indeed. Very few people feel they can do that. Mostly in any discussion about looking after ourselves AND our fellow workers, it is good to suggest that anyone in doubt might consult with their supervisor and that this is NOT 'informing against' anyone but rather, keeping the environment and their fellow workers safe.

Thankyou Paul Reneke.

I find Standard Operating Procedures are best created with worker participation, not unlike the ideal way of creating a Task Analysis (SWM, JSA or whatever acronym is current). They are best and most followed if they are frequently reviewed by the users.

The HSWA 2015 emphasises 'worker participation' for a reason. Worker participation works.

Stuart, haha! The man the Worksafe inspector spoke to most emphatically does NOT want to do it himself. He's not a fool, he could do it easily, he knows what I do and it's not what he wants to be spending his time on. Why should he?

Actually, for big commercial construction sites? "Do it yourself' setting up documents etc, would be far too time consuming. May's well say they can do their own accounting or any of 'their own' specialist writing. Quality for instance.

Yes, for small builders but not if they're wanting to work for Hospital Boards, Councils or doing work on some of the larger commercial construction sites. I have prepared documents for commercial construction sites, I know what the project managers and main contractors look for; I create working documents my clients can use.

And I audit to make sure they are creating a record of their safety activities on site. Everyone wants a health and safety policy that nobody wants to write and few ever read! By 'safety system auditors' you mean organisations like Sitewise and Impaq Prequal? Some client organisations want one, some want another. My clients just apply for whatever assessment organisation they're asked to.

.But you may well ask "why don't health and safety persons in permanent employment teach 'people how to do it themselves'?
Worker involvement. Is one of every good H&S practitioner's overriding objectives.

EXACTLY how I operate Tania.

Agree Simon.

Andrew a 'statement of fact' would be about one dodgy practitioner. Besides: that was MY experience. A generalisation about ALL practitioners is a disparagement not a 'statement of fact'.

Rob Abraas of course! Just - Worksafe NZ is the NZ Government H&S regulator. Some expectation of professional behaviour might be legitimate.

My experience of Worksafe NZ personnel so far is that they've all been excellent! Helpful, practical, with demands for records pared down to essentials. Excellent attitude. I'm surprised at the attitude of the one who visited my client.

There is no legal requirement for formal qualifications for EWPs but standard practice for all reputable organisations is rapidly becoming: "If there is a qualification available then operators must have it".

During site audits I'm happy to allow years of experience (competency) to take the place of an operator's ticket but I do want to see pre-starts, TAs and a filled in log book. All too often, especially with internal work like ceiling installation, people just hop on and use without any pre-start risk assessment or hazard id whatsoever. Not acceptable.

"Arbitrary Pre-qualification processes". Yes! Indeed. Oh well! Suppose it keeps us in work but its stultifyingly tiresome.

Companies/businesses need to maintain standards but they must be financially viable. I assist my clients mostly with the new ACC Accredited Employers Programme, Sitewise and Impaq Prequal, or, for the largest client ISO certification. They want these under their belts because the majority of large clients and bureacracies like councils and hospital boards request them. I watch the progress of SafePlus with interest.

PS May I most respectfully state that I am disappointed that purportedly educated 'people' misuse apostrophes for plurals (no apostrophes in plurals EVER!) and cannot adequately spell plurals like 'companies' and businesses.

Absolutely it's a workplace hazard. Sexual harassment IS a form of workplace bullying.

I have a policy and procedure for it which pretty closely follows your 6 points above except that my clients undertake to have a formal external investigation also if either party involved requests it. My preferred external investigator is a forensic engineer.

Surely there is a difference between "employee error" and even "incompetence" but guarding against carelessness "or non-compliance with instructions" is a hopeless thing to attempt.

I'm thinking of scaffold surrounding a high rise. Suppose there's a scaffold tag stating it is out of use and someone climbs it? Is the tag a reasonably practicable guard?

Suppose someone climbs the side of a scaffold instead of using a ladder. I guess we have to produce training documents to demonstrate the climber is trained not to clamber up the side of a scaffold. How would the training be sufficient guard against carelessness or "non-compliance with instructions" ?

Paul Reyneke yes! In the Middle Ages university students' studies included the contemplation of how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. "Angelology". A LOT of "Angelology" in our vocation no question.

1. Point taken of course about over-documentation BUT (in construction industry anyhow) accreditation organisations Sitewise and Impac/Prequal DEMAND that records of both toolbox talks and JSAs are signed by attendees. Worksafe persons on the other hand, in my experience, are happy with scruffy-ish dated diary notes.

2. Signatures are easily captured by having a sign sheet fastened to a couple of clipboards with a pen and passed around whilst the talk is in progress. Tbh it isn't difficult.