I am struggling to imagine how a resus manikin could be "dangerous in a confined space". Personally, I have never felt threatened or endangered by a manikin. There was once a model of human-realistic weight that was suited for practising Pole-top-rescue. That test-dummy could present a danger to a Lineman on the ground, if the prescribed method had not ensured they were standing clear. I am supposing that a trainer may place such a manikin in a defined confined space as a rescue and/or extraction exercise??
If my work took me occasionally into a confined space, I believe I would consider the danger of there being no knowledgable and trained co-workers near me, much greater than a first-aid provider's opinion that some danger existed in training my workmates.

I was an Apprentice Electrician in the 1960s. Everyone older than me had lived through the war, where they use to pin medals on those who exposed themselves to danger. When I refused to climb a ladder without a safety belt; the reaction was: "Yah scared of @@@##g heights yah p@!k?". When I tried to refuse to test the specific gravity of a lead-acid battery without safety goggles; the reaction was "I'm writing the results so do it." Sulphuric acid looks crystal clear as it flies towards your eyes.....

In a slightly related vein; City Councils have been known to offer reduced rates on residential property where they expect home owners/occupiers to keep the road-side lawns cut short. Are they, the council, employing the resident in a lawn-mowing capacity? It appears so if the reduced rate fee is a financial recompensation for work done on council-owned property. Should those councils then be liable to provide PPE to the resident and to train them in its use and enforce the use of the PPE?

But still, I may logically expect you Jono to now understand the safety meaning for the PIN that WE use daily... Because someone explained it to you! Sometimes "we don't know what we don't know". In many fields the "experts" display their esoteric knowledge by quoting jargon to the ignorant then gloating that those folk "don't even know what I mean". Surely the answer would be for the enlightened to ensure they are understood by including (in brackets) the definition of the acronym or jargon word for at least the first few times they apply it? [eg U3A (university third age)...]

Is it any real wonder that "the Officers didn't even know what a PIN was"?? Who in their right mind would choose an acronym for a safety related item that is identical to one that is so well-known as to immediately suggest that meaning? "Personal Identification Number" is not even close to the meaning that you somehow expect managers to attribute to "PIN" when safety is only one part of their role.

Andrew has a few valid points. ACC seem to have forgotten what their acronym stands for. Accident compensation should have remained their sole function. - Identify and determine that an injury was caused accidentally (using supplied information), pay compensation for as long as it is needed.
Naturally the data the organisation collects will have a valuable effect on identifying causes so this information may be used in the prevention of similar accidents; But this should activity should never have been claimed by ACC as their role. The analysis and application of the data is very logically the function of Work-safe.

Absolutely. My suggestion would always be the last resort.
But, in fairness, the way the problem was presented it sure looked like the final position had been reached. I quote: "We have several staff members however, that have presented letters from their GPs stating that they have a medical issue and they need to be excused from wearing safety boots."
I admit, I am still amazed to hear of a medical doctor who sidelines as a cobbler.

Perhaps Steve, you and I read and or comprehend slightly differently. I understood that the doctor issued an "Exemption" from wearing safety boots. That didn't sound (to me) like a doctor's invitation to engage in the selection of safety boots. From Kathy's story I took the explanation that her firm had already gone through an extensive procedure to allow the staff initially to choose from a preferred range and then to another supplier to select from a wider range. Could we expect a doctor to do more than this? I think not. Of course the first line of attack must be to do everything "practicable" to fit each worker with suitable PPE. This has been done already. The next, unfortunate, step can be little else than to separate the worker from the hazard. Personally, I would rather take an enforced change in employment than to become disabled through a preventable work accident.

If your worker is injured because they are not wearing safety shoes when the wearing of them would have prevented the injury, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO BE OFF WORK because you, their employer exposed them to the hazard. Harsh or not; If they cannot wear proscribed safety footwear or any PPE, then you must be considered negligent if you leave them in an area of risk. If you cannot remove or lessen the risk with protection, remove the person from the risk. To quote many a Mother; "You may sometimes have to be cruel to be kind.

Take a look at the procedure used by the NZ Army (and probably the other two services also). In accepted military notation the required pre-start-up check is referred to as the "First Parade". Extra checks are called "Halt Parade". Each vehicle has a check list for ticking off and a document for initialling to show compliance.

Notwithstanding any ratio by regulation, I believe the most important factor is that every worker/ staff member confidentially feels that they are personally represented on the H&S Committee and by a Representative that they relate to and who knows their particular job and their part in the structure of the organisation.

At the time (early 1980s) when I was National Secretary of NZ Institute of Safety Management, I was concurrently, National Secretary of the Affiliation of Railway St John Ambulance Divisions and Secretary of the National Committee for Mensa New Zealand.
Of the various industrial accidents I endured over the years, one of the most interesting (and painful) was being stung by a Scorpion while serving with the NZ Army in a Fijian jungle.

Even Lawn Bowling Clubs are being plagued by myths. There are claims aplenty that "the Safety industry" makes rules that the clubs must do certain things or risk massive fines. The things include such rules as removing rink markers from the banks around the greens, banning the drive [a fast bowl aimed at clearing out other bowls], stopping bowlers from sitting on the greens banks, etc. The common reaction to these "rules" is for bowlers to rant and rave about the way bureaucrats are trying to control the sport and every part of our lives. Then they start implementing the rules without checking their validity.

The most disturbing aspect of this that I find is the way that the report (or the heading at least) put the "blame" for the ruling once again onto the safety industry. It read as if some safety bureaucrat had made a directive to reverse the onions. Because of the numerous examples of previous misreports fed to and swallowed by the reasonable sensible public the story was added to the pile of evidence that tries to show the brainlessness of us in the field of safety.