1. Get rid of that dumb cat you see when you launch the Worksafe website (I know - its some small things that irritate me - but it a telling sign of a lack of fucus)

2. Every person would get a copy of S190 of the Act. They would be required to do a self assessment on how they actually achieve the "functions" with evidence that they are actually touching the outside world. Managers would do the same for the staff - and also be tasked with identifying any non-"function" activity's. Any person not contributing 100% to the function would be down the road - with a bit of leeway.

3. Now the core team has been found get them to identify the 20% of things that contribute 80% of the major problems. (The usual suspects Farming / Fishing Forrsty / Construction likely to be key contenders). This will form the basis of the priorities which will be focused on to develop the strategic plan

4. Let 80% of your people loose on the that 20% of thing's. The remaining 20% of the staff can look at improving the lot of the 80% of other things

5. Remind the teams that if what they are doing does not tick off one or more of the 11 functions then they are to stop doing it. Immediately.

I despair when I hear all this "Zero Harm" and "All incidents/Injuries are Preventable" nonsense.

These are to totally unachievable aims. I don't even count them as "aspirational". its just fluffy wooly headed thinking which we are seeing more and more from companies that are wrapping themselves up in ESG. (Take a look at the Fletcher Building share price from 2007 - 2023 if you want to see where muddle headed thinking gets you.)

It seems to me we have people who spend their time trying to out-virtue their peers.

On the off chance I am wrong, then we should also consider the law of diminishing returns. At some point we end up expending a huge amount of resource on preventing that one incident that causes a blister

"work" is a complex thing. Problem's will always arise. We need to be focusing on the problems that creates the most harm. And solving problems when they are small and don't get so big they get out of control.

My personal preference in most work environments is to seek out practical, hands on, worldly people who understand realistic risk and associated control measures. This requires a certain level of both IQ and EQ. I'd go for problem solvers (and people who can sell the solution) rather than "worry warts". There is a place for a high level academic approach _ but I think there are likely to be few opportunities. Please bear in mind many safety meetings can be held in stuffy and poorly ventilated environments and they can go on for quite some time. Good luck with the change in direction.

Food for thought.

I've got similar views on ACC who I would have to say seem to have gone down hill hugely over the past few years. I've tried to engage a few times with early return to work / light duty programme and got essentially zero response. There seems to be a total disconnect between what I expect public servants to do with what I get back in exchange. I now have no idea what they do - except suck up our levies and premiums.

I don't think I am being too harsh - I was singing Immigrations praises only a week or so ago - but was very disappointed to read they are now essentially a rubber stamp organization bereft of any due diligence abilities.

I'd fully support one. Provided they aren't patient advocates. I'm so tired of GP's just signing people off work for 5 days without any enquiry on light duties.

And it takes an age to get someone assessed for medical incapacity - we need a much faster and objective service.

I think I'll score my self 1/10 for at least spelling my name right!

Correct @MattD2. You can see why I didn't pass math! So many decimal points.

So lets try again
10ml of herbicide coming out of the container = 100mgs. If 36% of this is glyphosate we then have 36mg's of poison

We've got 36mg going into our 1 litre sprayer. And we then spray 99% of our brew or 35.64mg's onto weeds.

This leaves us with 0.36mg to dispose of with our triple rinse

Rinse 1 we tip 99% into the effluent pond so there goes 0.3564mg. Leaving us with 0.0036mg

Rinse 2 we tip 99% into the effluent pond and there goes another 0.003564mg. Leaving us with 0.000036

And third rinse we get rid of the lot so the final bit gets tipped into the pond.

So in the end, for 1 liter of spray we have disposed of 0.36mg in 3 litres of water that now heads to the effluent pond. Or 0.12mg a liter which is a smidge above the danger level - before it hits further dilution.

That my homework done. I hope I pass. But I expect a fail! (And its why I'm not an accountant)

@robb - Back in the day Glyphosate was my weedkiller of choice. I went through hundreds of litres of the stuff. Killed the weeds but not the good micro critters in the soil. Its good stuff for humans and plant - providing you don't drink it straight out of the container. The one I'd be watching out for around the home for humans and plans is Dicamba - now that can be pretty nasty to non target plants.

And if you have broad leaf at home - a sprinkle of salt will do the job.

Short answer is yes - it is safe to go in effluent pond and sewers. Simply because of the level of dilution

0.1mg of glyphosphate / 1 liter of water is known to be horrid to water based critters and plants.

Take your bog standard Glyphosate. And 1 litre of the stuff. Approx. 33% is the good /nasty stuff (depending on your view). The other 66% is filler.

You'll normally mix to a 1/10 ratio so there's your first dilution. 1 Liter of Glyphosate is actually 0.33l or 3.3Mg.

Say you have a 12/ knapsack's. Pour in your 1l of Glyphosate and 10 liters of water and you end up with about 0.33mg of glyphosate in about 11l of water. This is now in the non-hazardous zone

When you have finished you'll doing a triple rinse. So say you have a 10 litre (+/-) knapsack your will be diluting that 1/10 remnants with 30 litres of water. So now its super non dangerous.

However you are now sending your very diluted water way into a very large water system - the effluent pond. Which will dilute loads more. Leaving the remnants quite safe to water based critters and plants.

From a SDS here is the toxicity levesl

Acute Toxicity (fish) (glyphosate as IPA salt)
LC50 (rainbow trout) (96hr) 8.2-26mg/l
LC50 (bluegill sunfish) (96hr) 5.8-14mg/l (MCPB)
LC50 (carp) (96hr) 19.7mg/l
Acute Toxicity (daphnia) (glyphosate as IPA salt)
LC50 (48hr) 480mg/l
Toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms
Acute toxicity to birds (glyphosate)
LD50 (bobtail quail) 3850mg/kg
not toxic to birds
Acute toxicity (bees) (glyphosate)
LD50 100µg/bee
not toxic to bees

Seems to me Claude the Cat isn't really interested in consumer or home safety.

Or isn't that smart - which wouldn't be surprising since you never see cats in any list of the smartest animals.

If the shiny pant seat fillers at worksafe had done just the tiniest bit of research they might have found that in 2022, ACC accepted 856 claims for hot water bottle related injuries. And these injuries cost $730,000 to help people recover.

Contrast this with electric blanket injuries. 119 people were hurt in an electric blanket related injury at a cost of $240,000.

And in 2022 there was not a single electrical notifiable accident (non-fire) reported to Worksafe.

Which is probably no surprise because way back in 2018 Worksafe was saying "modern electric blankets have a protective guard wire system designed to prevent possible fires from occurring when an insulation fault occurs in the heating element"

So not only are they recklessly spending our money on dumb cats, they are spending our money on risk/hazards/dangers that are inconsequential when compared to other dangers.

Which ends up a distraction from more realistic risk.

Seems to me someone had a budget. And just had to spend it.

Well, since you raise it @Andy Huntly, and it is on worksafes website I see they are another organization grossly misusing the word "inequity"

So lets look at the latest data published August 2022 for injuries in 2020.

ACC Claims for fatal work related injuries
Maori make up 8% of claims
Europeans make up 76%

But the damning statistic is Men make up 92% of all fatal claims. If you want to see inequity there it is!

But let put deaths aside. Howabout just claims for workplace injuries
Maori make up 12% of claims (and if I recall correctly maori make up abourt16% of the population - though I'm not sure the % of the workplace population) while Asians make up 10% and Europeans make up 55%

And once again, men make up 69% of all claims while women make up 31%.

Seems to me its patently obvious where the inequities lie! And I would like to see worksafe doing something about it rather than worry about cats and electric blankets.

Heres me thinking you are pulling my leg.

But no!
A Deputy Chief Executive, Strategy and Insights. Heres an insight - don't be spending our money on electric blanket safety

A Deputy Chief Executive, Equity, Partnerships and Intervention Design. Well that just has to be a made up job.

A Deputy Chief Executive, Corporate. Surely a GM would do.

A Deputy Chief Executive, Operations. I suppose there is a job there.

A Tākai Aronui. I have no idea what that is so has to be a made up job

A Deputy Chief Executive, Enterprise Transformation. No idea if that is transforming Worksafe (fail) or my enterprise (no business of Worksafes)

Where is the Deputy CEO of Injury Prevention. Or Compliance?

But kudos given where kudos is due. CEO spent just $182 on farewell grub and $65 on a farewell gift. Though not quite so modest for the farewell of the Chair.

Thanks Dave. That section specifically deals with workplace injury prevention. In fact it actually says "Workplace Injury Prevention" not injury prevention of workers when they are in their bedrooms

Thanks @steve H.

I can understand Electrical regulation has to go some where. And since MBIE also has a role to play in regulating ACC, Building, Housing and Tenancy and Standards / Conformance it has no shortage of umbrellas under which Electric Blanket safety could come under.

It does not belong under the guise of worker safety. I object to my fees being put towards this when it could have come from one of the other buckets. And to me the messaging is muddle headed.

If Electrical regulators want to use Work safe to remind us of test / Tag electrical hand tools then they can fill their boots. But not domestic heaters.

Oh - and look ACC do give advice on electric blankets. So 2 of our tax dollars being spent on one message.

https://www.acc.co.nz/newsroom/stories/staying-safe-at-bedtime/

Chris definition works at a macro level.

But here we are dealing with safety. And safety has to have a people focus. Therefore I reckon a definition must include people for it to have an impact.

Some thing's in life we know, some things we don't. Same with foreseeability. And these influence certainty / uncertainty.

So I'd refine it to something like "The effect of a series of events that impact on a persons safety"

Worksafe people just need to turn up to work. And the very first thing they need to do is ask:"Is what I am going to do next going to improve the safety of workers in NZ"

If they answer "no" then they don't have a justifiable job. And out the door they should go.

Who ever invented "Claude the Cat" would be one of the first out the cat door.

Again as a bit of an aside @MattD2 Employment Agreements are a bit of a simple or tricky issue, depending how you look at them.

I don't have any broad "safety" clauses in mine.

Firstly I come from a position that safety isn't negotiable. And an Employment Agreement is a negotiated document.

Secondly you can't contract out of the law - so if there is already a legal requirement for an employee to do something , eg a workers duty under the HSWWA then there is no point putting it into the Employment Agreement.

If you put stuff like that in there then you are creating potentially confusing two points of reference instead of one. You also have something else that is kept in writing - and that's always problematic.

There is, broadly, nothing to stop an employer having a conversation with an employee about potential breaches of the HSWA due to fatigue / secondary employment, without the need to reference the employment agreement.

Because if the fatigued worker comes to work and has an injury that is one more injury that goes into the pot used to calculate experience rating.

As you pointed out - its not the wages of the second employment that impacts your experience rating - its the days off / costs that do.

The wages impact is what you have to pay in total all up first week compo.

Correct.
But say you currently get a 10% discount. You want to be well within the threshold of those numbers so you don't get close to losing 10% (discount / penalty comes in 10% increments) value of your premium. And all it takes is one person (doesn't matter if it is the secondary work person or not) to have excess days off or excess treatment costs (hopefully not a fatality!) to tip you over the edge.

Say you have a $200,000 ACC premium. And say you have someone on $200k on the second job. But that person has a bad accident requiring X days off that tip you over the edge. You are now looking at a $20,000 additional ACC cost. That isn't insignificant.

( I had one employee with several ACC claims -and hes tipped me over the edge. No longer works here. Fired!)

I havent seen it tested - but you probably can.

But you would need to put it in the employment agreement that any secondary employment needs to be approved and agreed by the employer prior to the employee taking up that second employment. Simplest that way.

The alternative is to renegotiate the employment agreement at a later date and have the clause inserted by mutual agreement.

Any secondary employment not approved could be ground for termination. I'd probably run with a breach of trust and confidence line. Though I'd give the employee an opportunity to remove themselves from that secondary employment first.

And ACC, should push come to shove, is a valid reason that helps an employer coming to a justifiable position. An employer shoudlnt be exposed to unknown business risk they can't manage. Claim costs are one aspect that ACC looks at when assessing an employers experience rating. Along with claim numbers. So 1 impaired worker having an accident can impact an employers experience rating / discount/ penalty. Of course - your wouldn't run that as your sole line of argument.

On a side note, any policies introduced without consolation and agreement with employees that impact on employment can leave an employer vulnerable if they choose to enforce those polices.

A sufficient reason would be:
On assessment of the activities carried out by the employee in their other job (or activity) there is a risk that the person would come to our work so impaired as to put the safety of themselves and others at risk.

Because this isn't just about second jobs. Its about activities out side work (sports or gaming being examples) that causes the impairment.

Of course you wouldn't just willy nilly go firing they person. You'd give them an opportunity to choose.