"Do you ever find you need to take off your HR hat and put on your H&S hat to get the best outcome?"

Short answer is "NO"

I think what we all must constantly remember and recognize is - who it is who is writing out our pay cheque. That is the person we are serving.

I also have an approach which is to "always do the right thing". So if I do the right thing for the person paying my cheque, I will as a consequent be doing the right thing for the "workers" and also abide by whatever law might cover a given situation.

I don't take off one hat and put on the other. I think it is essentially the same hat - that is: what is the best way to manage this particular risk/issue. Its a philosophical / ethical approach - and discussion on that means entering a rabbit hole!.

So for example. We know bullying / violence is a risk. I've put in place a number of preventative steps. But when a guy pulled a box cutter knife and threatened a co-worker I fired him. Reflecting, I can see loads of steps in that total situation and each one I can say I 'did the right thing". One hat, two issues.

(Some people are very mis-guided on what the right thing is. I find a fact based, evidential approach helps)

":I'd be keen to hear your views about the differences between HR and H&S as business functions."

Essentially none - both are about "risk" (and I dont specifically mean legal risk) and customer service

Disc - I wear many hats. HR and H&S being 2 of them

At the risk of going down a rabbit hole we shouldn't lose sight of the "reasonably practicable" requirement. (Eg "to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable"

Point One is a bit dicey and may not be enforceable, or the employer may face accusations of discrimination by having such a clause.

Employers need to ensure they make "reasonable accommodations" for hairy chinned people if that hair is due to religious grounds (or hirsute women).

(Also a dumb clause in times of skills shortages - I'd loose half my workforce if I had such a clause)

Its not used here. I prefer to keep all my risks recorded in one place and accessible to all staff.

Once I have a substance and SDS I just go from there.

Not a big fan of lots of different data management resources. Have one - keep it simple.

Your thread title appears to assume "pay" is a primary motivator. Perhaps it isn't.

Maybe a role where you can actually achieve something meaningful is more important and thus pay becomes less relevant.

Maybe higher pay is needed to compensate for a raft of other (negative) issues a person might face in taking up safety related roles.

Maybe pay should be based on post-recruitment achievements, rather than pre-employment potential.

I've no idea if $96k is enough (as a median) as I have no idea what objectives / responsibilities might be tied to such a role.

Is there any suggestion employers are hiring people who they dont think are the "best"

A good way to start the month I reckon: Hair Straighteners banned at TVNZ
https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/116121201/tvnz-bans-hair-straighteners-in-the-newsroom-to-minimise-risk-during-rugby-world-cup


I reckon someone has read this article (http://www.syfire.gov.uk/beauty-buffs-risk-fire-and-burns-with-hair-straighteners/) which says " An estimated 650,0001 house fires in the UK have been caused by a straightener or similar device being left on.".

Unfortunately that article is at odds with this article (https://www.firstalert-online.co.uk/fire-safety-facts/)
which says "There are about 37,000 house fires a year in the UK, the majority of which are caused by electrical equipment misuse, mainly cooking appliances."

Thankfully for TVNZ staff the RWC will end and the risk will disappear.

In response to an absence of a sense of humour and censorship there will be no more posts from me on the Frivoulous Friday thread.

There is no such thing as a "Gender Pay Gap".

It is simply a metric that allows those who are otherwise unemployable an opportunity to work in data analytics which serve no purpose other than give moaners something to moan about and policy wonks an opportunity to create more useless policy.

Having "excellent air quality results" implies testing with some kind of objective outcome.

Where as your sons view is entirely subjective (I'm not allowed to call my sons car a POS - but his wallet is discovering that in its own time)

We need to split the objectivity from the subjectivity. There is evidence the air is "excellent". All good.

There is no evidence of the doctors subjective view that the employees lung issue is due to work. To come to a more complete view the Doctor needs to see the air results and then form a view relative to the lung results and all other air the employee is/has been exposed to.

The beauty of testing (both worksite air and lung function) is you end up with objective results. Still doesn't mean to say the two are linked.

You will likely find the Doctor is acting as patient advocate and first port of call for blame is the employer.

Send a copy of the air results to the Doctor, along with PPE requirements. That will close that problem off

That said, as added comfort I get hearing and lung functions tests done annually for staff exposed to higher risk environments. The only people with lung function change are those who smoke.

You may want to look at your engineering controls - ie air extraction / changes/filtering.

Don't be fighting battles if its not really yours to fight.

I rate LTI data in the same way I rate "Gender Pay Gap" data.

Sadly I had to fire someone today. One of our people managed a team and a staff member lost three fingers in an electric food mixer.

I’ve done the accident investigation and I found the manager hadn’t done a proper whisk assessment.

I'm sensing some seriousness creeping into this thread. This will not do!

So, two Corrections Officers walked into the Café. The first one says "I think I'll have a flavoured slushy H2O." The second one says "I think I'll have a flavoured slushy H2O too" Sadly he died.

We are a "High Viz Free Zone" and seem to be the only business in NZ who hasn't succumbed to this nonsense.

We have two types of contractors. Those that have a "permit to work" which gives them total free range and no need to identify them. The others must be accompanied by a staff member at all times.

How tasteless to stick guests in a high Viz. Urk!!! You wouldn't do it at home. Why do it at work. Our guests are accompanied by a host at all times.

We do have an underlying principle that we treat contractors (including on-hire agency workers) in exactly the same way as we treat our own staff. Same expectations, same access to facilities (including cafe), same dress expectations. Same Same!

Your option "1" is inconsistent with the Wages Protection Act. You cannot make unreasonable deductions from an employees wages (even if they agree to it).

A wage deduction would not be a reasonable consequence for failing to deal with a safety complaint / violation.

There is one thing that reasonable employers can't do - and that's meddle with an employee's wage.

Also if you paid your workers $22.60 an hour and deducted $5.00 an hour for a safety breach your actions would be inconsistent with the Minimum Wage Act.

Option "2" is also fraught with difficulty

He's the one. But he was re-trained to use them on the other side of the timber and all ended well.

So, I‘ve had a wee accident on site and need to look at my prequal processes.

Harry was high on the scaffold and walked past a bit of protruding gutter. Poor bugger – cut off his ear.

He shouted down to Larry…” Oi! Look out for my ear, I just cut it off”

A bit later Larry calls up to Harry “Hey - is this your ear?”

Harry looks down and says, “Nah! Mine had a pencil behind it!”

Theres only two places for passion: The fruit bowl and bedroom

So I was giving a tool box talk the other day. You know me – constantly preaching safety at work. Decided to focus on “speed”.

“Does anyone know,” I asked the team, “what the speed limit is in our parking lot?”

The long silence that followed was interrupted when Dave piped up. “That depends. Do you mean coming to work or leaving?”