are you a test & tagger yourself Steve?

there's duties in the HSWA to deal with importers of equipment for workplaces Steve, I'm picking a CE that is that careless isn't getting T&T done anyways. Using the extreme examples to justify mindless tick and flick doesn't hold in my electrical safety model. The driver who swaps her illegal rims and rubber to get the WOF doesn't justify everyone having to have a WOF it underlines the futility of it.

got to pile in on the 'not needed' team and go further - it creates a false sense of security like a W.O.F. PCBU are also expected to train people for the risks they're exposed to, a regular check of cords that are run out and walked over is much more convincing than a tag on a monitor that is Never moved. remember that part of reasonably practicable is essentially a proportionality test - understand the risk rather than one size fits all tick and flick

I also find it useful to make this distinction. Worker engagement can and should go beyond reps. Not all reps need be on committee and not all committee members need be reps. A committee member resigning from committee business leads to a the filling of a committee position according to agreed process; a constitution can be helpful. A representative resigns from representing the work group is unrepresented until that is resolved to the already agreed process as per the H&S engagement reps generally and r13 in particular.

this ratio is prescribed for the workplace that only has one workgroup. If the workplace has more than one work group there are a list of things in r7 to consider. In practice 1:19 is a handy guide

I don't think so

Part of encouraging conversations that reduce risk of harm instead of paperwork that folk think will satisfy the hunger of "Worksafe waiting to pounce' is to focus on precisely the intention set (by parliament, not Worksafe) and figure our human way to it rather than cast around for prescription and audit standards.

I agree it needs more work but not to avoid the negligible chance that we'll be explaining ourselves to WorkSafe but because it just might work to reduce harm.

To go back to the car analogy it took decades to get almost universal acceptance of wearing a seatbelt.

I'd suggest that under the principle/contractor model there was a top-down approach rather than a cooperative approach based on who has control and influence - risk by risk. The change to the three Cs is not to create new paperwork but to facilitate new conversations. I reckon...

it varies; many are still looking for THE PCBU who has THE PRIMARY DUTY and is therefore liable if things go wrong. Some are trying to figure out the balance between genuine discussion and management of risks with documentation of discussions to prove to 'them' that it was done.

the regulation defines health monitoring in relation to individual (i.e. it is not exposure monitoring) and this doesn't relate to SWI's so far as I can tell.
The situation being covered is if an occ health nurse, during the course of monitoring a worker's health in relation to the risks they were exposed to, informed the boss that the worker had been harmed as a result of those risks or made a recommendation that the boss changed how work is carried out.

I have never received a recommendation that we change our welding practices from an occ health nurse under any situation (including as a result of workers' health monitoring) or information that they believe the worker's ill health is related to welding fumes at work. Therefore I've not informed WorkSafe

Best policy is driver's phones off in moving vehicles. 2nd best is use hands free to ascertain whether its a quick response required and if not pull over to complete the call

I've yet to see good practice around this. Hire their biggest chainsaw and they talk you through starting it but don't ask what you intend to use it for or ask to see your PPE, or what you know about dropping trees

This topic gets a lot of attention while not contributing to a lot of workplace incidents (in my experience - not sure about the global data). We can not and should not rely on the law or our policies alone to protect our workplaces from workers turning up for work unfit due to fatigue, alcohol, drugs, mental distraction. If we're worried about impairment (as we should be) workplace relationships are a key part of the approach

@ Bruce, we don't random test but we have a low bar for reasonable cause (mainly vehicle & plant damage)

Isn't it also true that the roadside alcohol and blood testing is not an impairment test either? At best it indicates likelihood of impairment which we then use to put on our 'balance of probability'

Adding to Bruce's question what do you think of these points?

We need to keep a focus on reasonable cause and realise that any reasonable cause we have is reasonable cause to suspect impairment whether that be drugs, alcohol, fatigue, distraction...

Reasonable cause is our version of 'walk the line' and our final defence on the job.

Oral fluid with its shorter detection period could encourage workers to self-report too tired because they are not worried about the joint they had a week ago

and the gods will laugh

Do you have workers participating in developing the strategy? If so, how? If not, why?
Do you involve partner PCBU in developing the strategy? If so, how? If not, why?
How do you bring the strategy to life / visiting a work site what would I expect coal face worker to know of the strategy?
How to articulate the contest & harmony of regulatory compliance with meaningful progressive safety & health practice?

Taking the normal concern about meeting for meeting sake for granted. We are an essential service in a trying time for our workers. There's lots of new stuff as well as the same old. Part of the challenge is workers choosing (more often then 'normal') to choose expediency over safety when all our customers are doing it hard as well. For these reasons engagement systems that work for worker participation are still vital in our firm. We have implemented a virtual committee that has a closed chat group to enable discussions to be contributed to when workers have the space in their day rather than concentrating it into a 90 minute monthly meeting.

It's new so I can't speak to whether it works, that'll be determined by the workers we've set it up for.

Sounds about right. We need people in the industry that can communicate with the people doing the work. Thankfully for Aotearoa, there are people keen to bring their skills here in all sorts of roles. It's only appropriate that they get support from people who have some shared experience.

Oh... I'd like to think I'm worth more than I'm paid. To be honest that's been true from when I cleaned the butchers after school, learned then practiced my trade, did many of the service jobs we do as adult students with a family, acted as an advocate for those worse off than most and now helped people find the safest way through their work.