Hi there

Kane at KT Services, specialises in this type of work and is excellent to deal with. Based in Auckland and delivers across NZ. Feel free to PM me if you want an introduction to the company.

KT Services

Hi @Julie Foote, Similar comments and background to @Matthew Bennett, recently we have been using a Zoleo www.zoleo.com device its not a monitoring device and is similar to an Garmin Inreach but has a better app interface so chatting to staff in the field is easy. Like all of these devices it does have a SOS function. Ours has all the senior managers numbers in the "check in function" so everyone is aware of an OK worker or one in distress at the same time. I find the key issue is not so much knowing a worker is out there and whether they are standing up and moving or its a "man down" event but enabling them to communicate easily with the office when things are a bit wrong and they need support, and this maybe from project to people. The Zoleo device has its own dedicated aussie cell number, works on wireless & satellite so largely will work anywhere and their new service is being able to text a worldwide medical network for advice which is pretty impressive. So this is a good a manual manage it your self option for a few devices when you take them because you need them option.

We simplified the problem and changed our provider for one who stamped the date as "when the training occurred" and left us to figure out the refresher problem according to ours or the clients needs, not the training vendors sales budget.

We only have those signs on the outside of our premises due to needing to pass an audit once, I asked the auditor the "what regulations specifically" question, they only looked bewildered and carried on. For the few dollars it cost it was cheaper to do that than argue the point of value or function.

Ahhh the office cynic here, yep the ACC WSMP was actually a good programme, in that the "gov't" could offer you a free audit by someone who actually turned up at your office and your worksite. They actually looked at what you said you were doing against what the team were doing. I even got some practical and useful feedback from these audits and it did improve our process, so a lot different to every other audit I've done.

The massive discount well there was a funny joke it only applied to one part of your levies, as you would expect it was the lowest cost component, so no not really only a token few sheckles off but at least I didn't have to shell out to have an audit. The other ironic joke was the ACC audit (by a Govt Dept per se) was not recognised by other "govt depts", however it did support lots of companies selling a product to save you 20% off your ACC levies at trade shows and their cost often outweighed the savings that was good laugh to see happen.

I would refer to your risk analysis, if you identify a risk such as "height" and a control such as "wear a harness" then you have chosen PPE as the lowest form of control (obviously because eliminate is not an option if you are trying to have fun) so that answers that question because not wearing a harness is not an option. However, I guess the actual question hiding in your question is is as old as the 1992 act "who pays for it" well its pretty well articulated in both acts its an employers problem, but there are different ways to skin the cat you can either reimburse or supply. Many an outdoor or adventure tourism businnes has wrestled with this for 30 years but PPE shouldn't a be a burden to your employees, is the intention of the act.

I think our staff noticed it one day in passing and wondering what it was and probably concluded it was to add colour and cheerfulness to the forms. :smile: . The truth is they appreciated it to avoid conflict with the client so it didn't improve safety but it did improve customer relationships so i guess maybe there is a benefit to the matrix. I do agree that they are useful for guiding a "risk" conversation, I have used them to discuss risk opinions with the team.

We can talk to the cows come home on risk matrices versions and theories but at the shop floor if you don't have one in your paperwork the clients will pop a vein becasue it appears that you have done something wrong, illegal or some other very bad thing. We were forced several years ago add one in ours to appease clients and prequalifications companies. Unfortunately the risk matrix has grown to mythic preportions where alternatives or better options are not acceptable. Perhaps we could have an industry wide matrix burning party one day?

We keep it simple and use whatsapp predominantly to mass communicate across our teams and you can set up groups easily and its free. Obviously no data, no cell phone reception so then its no worky but hey you could always use smoke signals, but will only work outside, there is always a block to implementation from somebody. There is no such thing as "100% will always work" unless you throw money at the problem, remember to also look at the problem and also to assess the need to train people how to respond when there is no comms. Often these issues are addressed from a "management will tell you how to" perspective instead of a "this is how we respond" perspective. We prefer simple lightweight approaches such as "if an event happens, communicate" we don't care how you do it just do it. Whilst we make every endeavour to give them the tools and abilty to communicate we expect it to fall over and they will have to solve it on the day.

Keeping it simple using a excel for all HSQE management why pay subscriptions when you can do it all for the exsiting cost of MS Office, we even fill out Worksafe notfications automatically from it courtesy of macros. The nice bit is if we want a change it happens now not when the help desk can do it. Most H&S software I have come across meets the proverbial "sledge hammer to crack a nut" measure. Handy if you want to have lots of reports for looking good but does it add value?

Well I'm a simple man and use NZTA Commercial Driving time as our fatigue policy seen we have to drive to jobs, carry out work and drive home. No sense writing a doc like the WHS-51 Fatigue Management Procedure (I lost it on the first page) or reinventing the wheel when the Gov't has a good standard already.

I couldn't agree more staff are generally far more interested in the actions of the business to keep them safe not the certificates on the wall. As a large generalization, staff are not interested in the "safety system" i.e the paperwork used onsite, they are far more interested in the safety attitude of the company.

Within our organization we primarily focus on one thing more than anything else; discuss, listen & engage with all staff about the day to day details of delivery on site. This approach contributes directly to staff and has real meaning for them versus a conversation going something like this "this is our company x compliant system so you will be safe". Your delivery people are looking for genuine face to face understanding from competent skilled risk managers who know what they do and how they do it. They will never be excited by an external certificate if they do not genuinely believe that their safety is the first focus of the business.

I totally agree with this but we are faced with a culture from pre-qualification companies who, if not able to tick the "Safety Policy Box" (or insert any other policy box) then you will fail your audit. I know this implicitly because of the significant number of pre-qual audits we do. One pre-qual company demanded that we address "Workers must not intentionally misuse or damage personal protective equipment provided to them" in our policy on PPE which was only written to keep them happy. When challenged with I'm sorry auditor person, we just don't employ staff who do this, we hire adults. We found out this wasn't sufficient and to pass the audit we had to comply with the request. If the client company who uses this pre-qualification company needs us to address this then the company needing the pre-qualification needs to address its worker's attitude not have us write nonsense policies.

We are a company that tries like hell to avoid policies that are not embedded in daily activity i.e in a JSA or similar. For example, say for simplicity sake "work at height" is the risk our policy which is the control measure is "must be trained & wear a harness" (it's simplified here its not our full control measure). This way we clearly communicate company "policy" and the staff see it every day it is not a piece of forgotten wallpaper.

Sadly the road forward is obscenely complicated and onerous safety systems not for worker protection but compliance with other companies' perception of safety through policy. Typically the companies driving this behavior have no direct relationship with your business activities and flatly no interest in them but to only ensure you have a "Policy" and said box can be ticked and the bill can be sent. I applaud inspiration in safety systems but currently, Policy Beige is the only option.

Hi There,

In reply to Chris Alderson's post as we are all aware that the prequalification situation is broken. However, no new system will work for SMEs until it is NZ wide government-led solution and not a sector driven approach. Currently, I can get a WOF that works nationwide on State Highways or on a rural road, I can choose a food shop on a national grade etc but currently, even government organisations can't agree on which prequalification to use let alone the corporates.

Prior to the dearth of these companies arriving over the last 6 years, we were developing a programme to run our own independent audit of our company to our requirements. The aim was to get real genuine, fit for purpose feedback that would have had real tangible safety benefit for our staff and our organisation. However, with the heavily rising cost of prequalification and the reality of no client ever accepting our own independent audit, we ceased this programme. One of the key outputs from this plan was to identify key areas where to increase expenditure in HSQE that again would have had high value to our staff. With the horrendous cost, (annual cost plus time plus loss of client due to prequalification exceeding revenue of work) over the last 6 years, this has not been an option.

Now don't get me wrong we have operated for over 25 years in high-risk environments with no serious harm. We have used and maintained a safety management system since we started and are extremely proud of what we do, how we do it and what we achieve. What we really wanted to do was to be more exceptional and aspirational. Prequalification systems have killed this, we simply do not have the budget or resource time it to do it anymore.

So until its a cast iron guarantee that any new system or new idea will work for all industry from Kaitaia to Bluff and accepted by any PCBU then I will only be expecting more erosion of genuine business focused safety. Now i must go finish yet another prequalification for another company, only because i cant even ask for work from them unless i have it and i though gambling was illegal.