I was somewhat dismayed at MattD2's narrow analysis of the implications my comments alluded to, but conversely encouraged by the insight and understanding evinced by Andrew's responses. He displayed an excellent grasp of the subject matter. Experience certainly aids our understanding. — Rowly Brown

to be fair your original reply on face value was only related to the ACC implications for employers, and did not refer to any other post or detail in this thread, or to it being a secondary consideration to be aware of. In fact the post starts with a statement that the ACC cost implications are an important and significant fact.
I agree that misunderstandings/misinterpretations are easy to occur when context is missing.

The intent of my original reply was just to widen the scope of your comment - and to put it into context that while it is reasonable to have policies in place to limit secondary employment to manage the H&S risks that secondary employment may create for an organisation, that to be cautious if you are only considering the cost implications from ACC when determining if secondary employment should be limited.

After all, the ACC cost implications of workplace accidents are a carrot (or stick) to encourage organisations to manage H&S risks in their workplaces - and therefore the focus should be on managing the H&S risks (i.e. manage the fatigue risks), rather than a direct focus on managing the ACC cost risk (i.e. blanket policies limiting secondary employment without individual consideration).

I know that for some owners / boards / executives seeing the (potential) financial shock of what a workplace injury could mean for their ACC liability can be a driving force for change/improvement - you just have got to be cautious that those changes/improvements are focused in the appropriate direction and not towards unintended consequences.

I'll give you that... but the offence is to actually knowingly or recklessly use, or let someone else use, an electrically unsafe appliance (R15.3), not the stuff the WorkSafe warnings were really advising for (fire risks from electric heating appliances, rather than electrocution risks from electricity).

Some interesting information in there. Especially the research on the half-life of Glyphosate breaking down in the enviroment (mean half-life of 30 days). That's key in considering how much and how often you can wash out into an effluent pond without an issue.

10ml of herbicide coming out of the container = 100mgs. — Andrew

This is where you are making an error. 1ml (of water) = 1g (=1000mg). So your calculations are out by a factor of 100 (10ml = 10,000mg not 100mg).

are you sure those calcs are correct?

Round-Up (and the other glyphosates) all seem to be around 360g/L (36% so close enough to your rough 33%) - and the dilution ratio for use is typically 10ml per 1 L (or 1:100), this is simialr to your double dilution example of 1 L weed killer to 10L water, and then diluting that again with 1L in a 12L napsack sprayer, but this would give a diluted concentration of 3.6g per liter (not 0.33mg per 11 litres).
I would expect minimum residue to be left in the sprayers when washing out, lets say no more than 100 mL so 0.36g of residual glyphosate to go to the effluent pond (or 360mg) - to get under the 0.1mg/L concentration you mentioned the pond would need to have 3,600L for each sprayer being washed out.

So it is likely not an issue, however I'm not sure about how and how quickly it would break down in the effluent pond - so the concentration might increase over time if it is a regular occurrence.

to further mitigate the risk you could ensure that the sprayers are fully empty before washing and the first wash water (rinsate) is used to manage any weeds/grass in the proximity of the wash-down pad.

The safe supply and use of electricity, components, appliances, work practices in homes,businesses, work sites, mines etc etc means there is a safety education component to their workload,that has to reach the average domestic consumer, small business owner/manager, appliance retailer/wholesalers, mining etc etc, — Steve H

The only thing in the Electrical Safety regulations that needs to reach domestic consumers is the notion of prescribed electrical work which is regulated and required to be completed by a licenced individual. And even that is more suitably communicated to households by MBIE under:

• Building Performance through the building code / building consent process for electrical work in the home,
• ACC for the safe use and repair of electrical appliances, and
• Consumer Protection for the purchase of electrical appliances (new or used) or engaging someone to repair electrical appliances.

The rest of the regulations covers how electrical work is required to be undertaken and verified (and other administrative points).

To put the question a different way - where in the electrical safety regulations requires a domestic consumers to check an electric blanket for hot spots or keep electric heaters a meter away from things / not cover them / not plug them into multi-boards (and therefor the need for WorkSafe to communicate those requirements to domestic consumers as part of their )? It's not in there. And so it is not in WorkSafe's area of responsibility to provide guidance over this, and therefore going back to the OP - WorkSafe should not be spending its budget on this.

This is a big problem in the Workplace Safety industry - how often are we at a social event and someone is doing something stupid and we get called upon as "H&S" to stop them, where really as long as they are not being exploited for another person benefit it has nothing to do with us as a workplace H&S expert. And yes there is an argument that we should be stepping in if we have real concern for their safety as a friend, family member or even random member of the public - but that goes equally for everyone at that event and it is based on not wanting to see someone get hurt (rather than any legal duties).

Just another example that [to paraphrase the MBIE report done last year] "...WorkSafe’s description of what it does is unclear, and a description of how its core activities are linked to its outcomes can not be located."
The "Switch on your Smarts" campaign contains information more relevant to households rather than businesses, and (while there could be some good advise in there) your right to ask why this is coming from WorkSafe rather than ACC or another more relevant agency.
I was thinking maybe it's overdue for a shake up of the leadership at WorkSafe, but then realised that they only changed their CEO in 2020... although I don't think there really has been much fresh thinking in WorkSafe since 2016. I originally had some hopes that with the new legislation and messaging from WorkSafe at the time focusing on "who creates the risk, needs to manage the risk" we were heading in the right direction, only for that to be cut short at the final hurdle to revert back to a simplistic "manage your significant hazards [sorry I mean] critical risks".
I wonder what WorkSafe would be like now if the transition in 2016+ had not reversed direction like it did?

Sorry if the above ACC talk has taken this a bit off-topic.
Regarding the employment contract - does it include any general clause regarding the employee's obligations under HSWA's duties of workers? e.g. that they take reasonable care for their own H&S at work and that no actions or inaction of theirs adversely affects the H&S of another person.
From what you describe in the OP, it could be reasonable to conclude that this worker was putting their own or another persons safety at risk if they are working 80+ hours a week at two full time jobs, with physically demanding workloads. Even needing to take into account if they are driving to/from work - there was a case a few years back where a company was prosecuted for a fatal accident when a worker crashed a tractor he was driving home after a nearly 17 hour work day.
First steps would need to be a discussion with this employee about their current role, and overall workload (from both/all jobs and other commitments). With talking through the risks they are putting themselves and others at, and why they have taken on the secondary employment, you can hopefully come to an agreement with the best way forward.
Also the horse may have bolted on this one employment contract wise, but it is definitely something that your HR should be closing the gap on in future employment contracts.

I was originally responding to Rowly's post warning people that you are liable for covering 80% of all of the injured worker's income. My comment was to clarify that you cannot restrict your employees taking a second job for that reason alone, and you have to have a genuine reason for restricting secondary employment, and you cannot restrict secondary employment greater than necessary regarding that genuine reason.

No one is arguing that you can't / shouldn't have a policy in place (and clauses in your employment contracts) to restrict workers from taking on additional employment. This is reasonable to manage the risks associated with workplace fatigue, especially regarding secondary employment.

Rowly's post was not referring to the risk of losing any discounts to ACC levies if a worker is injured in your workplace due to being fatigues from another job. You are making good points - but effectively those points are regarding the business managing the risk of fatigue in their workplace and minimising the likelihood those risks cause a worker to be injured/killed. With the loss in ACC levy discount is just secondary to this, as those discounts were always an incentive for businesses to take active steps to manage risks.

How does the salary/wages of a second job factor into your ACC experience rating calculation? It doesn't.
The only way it could factors in is if you claim that having a second job before the injury slows the recover of the injury that your company caused (i.e. increasing the number of compensation days). But that would be hard to prove. And even harder to justify as a genuine reason to restrict employees' rights as a blanket policy.

all good points.
But I would still argue that a concern about paying additional ACC cover for one week would not be a genuine reason. Even if the other employment was a $200k annual salary, you would knly be kn the hook for about $3000. And from what I understand from the ACC information the experience rating doesn't take into account the dollar value of compensation payments (only the cost of treatment (over $500) and days of compensation paid, and fatalities).

yeah that is what I said - in the OP's case it would be pretty reasonably to restrict that kind of additional/secondary employment.

What I was clarifying is you can't stop an employee from taking a second job just because you don't want to have to cover the wages of that other job for a week if you injure them (replying to Rowly's warning)

The CellAED might be something worthwhile to promote in your trade show https://smartfirstaed.co.nz/product/cellaed/
While still "just an AED" the innovative part is they have reduced the cost of each unit significantly to the typical AEDs on the market - $600 vs >$2000
This reduces the cost barrier to be able to supply an AED on most construction sites in NZ, so that if one is needed it is immediately available.

Maybe some employers might want to consider a "policy" on secondary employment for their workers, particularly if their worker's other employment was higher paid.
Check ACC Act 2001, S.98; & Schedule 1 cl.33(2). — Rowly Brown

Just be careful as an employer can not prevent an employee from taking a second job unless it has genuine reasons. The increase risks identified in the OP's case would likely suffice but the restrictions can only be so far as necessary to manage the genuine reason(s).
I would not expect the courts to consider "we don't want to pay our employee more money if we hurt that employee" as a genuine reason for preventing a worker from taking a second job.
Emplyment Relations Act 2000 - S67H

I would have to take your money because from my discussions with them there was no apparent H&S strategy or system at all. — Chris Alderson

damn didn't anticipate that loophole... although that is none that was explicit, I would counter that this type of messaging was likely still in place implicitly that "you should have told us if it was so dangerous" / "how are we supposed to know that was a risk if you didn't say anything"

I would expect thats how the conversation went with WorkSafe as well - "well we have never had any issues like this regarding that job in the past, and none of the workers including the one that got injured said that it was dangerous, so it was an unforeseen risk but now we know we'll do something about it ok".

I wuld bet a large sum of money that a large part of your son's previous employer's H&S management strategey was some sort of "look after your workmates" and/or "see something / say something" program / messaging.
It is no surprise that when these types of programs are in place (as they are with a lot of companies both large and small) that workers blame themselves when they or a workmate gets injured. And my pessimistic side goes further to say this is a feature of the system and not a bug...

I can see why you want to take this path, it would be awesome to have a tight fitting half face PAPR that you can wear with facial hair. it would be a great marketing point of difference. Strange that no other major RPE manufacturer make the same claim especially any that have a product with certification under EN12942 as a TM. — RPE Fit tester

There always has to be someone that is first to market with an innovative product. I would expect that most of the other RPE manufactures have been caught resting on their laurels regarding R&D of truly innovative RPE. CleanSpace's "story" webpage calls this out.

Personally I would only fit test tight fitting face pieces when the wearer is clean shaven and if it is a PAPR or supplied air that it is under negative conditions. — RPE Fit tester

And that is your opinion, but can you point to anywhere in the AS/NZS Standards or WorkSafe guidance that specifically states that a PAPR that uses a close fitting face-piece must designed and tested with the assumption that the respirator is a negative-pressure type respirator and must rely on the facial seal to prevent inward leakage. Clause 6.4.3 in AS/NZS 1715 (1994 version is all i have on hand) does include that:

Respirators incorporating close fitting facepieces rely on facial fit to prevent inward leakage of contaminants. Such respirators employing a full facepiece or half facepiece must not be used by males who are not clean shaven about the cheeks, neck and jaw. Half facepiece respirators of this type must not be used by those with moustaches where there is any chance of hair coming between the facepiece and the skin.

But also goes on to say in the same clause:

Respirators which maintain a positive pressure in the facepiece at all times provide a higher degree of protection than can be achieved with negative pressure types. Positive pressure respirators may diminish the effect of poor facial fit but will not obviate the effect of leakage caused by facial hair (see Clause 7.5). Where conservation of the air supply is important, e.g. self-contained breathing apparatus, it should be recognized that any leakage, e.g. from the facial seal, increases air consumption and decreases service time.

Given "facepiece" is only used in reference to close fitting half or full face masks (hood or head covering do not get referred to as "facepieces") The second part of the clause would somewhat clarify that the first part is referring to negative-pressure type half/full masks.
The testing regimes in App D (which are informative only) also do no specify that testing should be done so that the facepiece is worn in a "negative-pressure way", and it would be assumed that when testing the RPE is effective it would be used in the same way that it would be used "in the field" (i.e. powered on for a CleanSpace PAPR).
You also have to consider that CleanSpace released their first model in 2010 (a year after the company was founded). This is one year after AS/NZS 1715 was last revised and only 2 years before AS/NZS 1716 was revised - although nothing in the latest standard would prevent CleanSpace's RPE getting certified under AS/NZS 1716 as a PAPR without the need to rely on a facial seal. The claims made in the standards need to be considered with the knowledge and information available at the time they were written, since then CleanSpace's own studies/research has shown that their PAPR provide an adequate level of protection even when worn by those with facial hair - remember that this is research that was completed more than 10 years after the AS/NZS standards were last revised.

Irrespective of all this and what I have said before, and taking into account that legislation / Standards always lag behind innovation - the ultimate question that needs to be answered is "does the selected RPE manage the risk of working in a contaminated atmosphere so far as reasonably practicable?"
Which is why fit testing (qualitative or quantitative) is recommended to establish if the provided RPE provided the required level of protection. It is also why it should be tested as close as practical to how it will be used in the actual work environment, e.g. moving, heavy breathing from heavy workloads, talking, etc.
If the CleanSpace PAPR can be shown to answer that question then you have discharged your duty, i.e. by following CleanSpace's recommended selection and assessment process, and by having a Respiratory risk management process that ensures RPE where used is selected/used/maintained correctly.

Also AS/NZS1716 does not have a provision for the certification of half face loose fitting PAPR only tight fitting half face. Loose fitting under this standard requires a complete hood or helmet. — RPE Fit tester

AS/NZS 1716 doesn't use the term "tight fitting", hence they also do not use the term loose fitting. The AS/NZS standard defines the terms "half facepiece" and "full facepiece" as "a close fitting device to cover the nose, mouth and chin / eyes, nose and mouth [respectively] and be secured in position by suitable means." Close fitting would be considered as resting against the face, but the standard does not specify these have to be "tight fitting" and rely on a seal between the mask and skin to function correctly. Section 3.2.1 specifies that "the assembled respirator shall provide adequate protection either by means of a facial seal or by the provision of positive pressure in the space enclosed by the respirator, or by both, to minimize the entry of ambient atmosphere."
And the facial fit tests (App. D Total Inward Leakage tests) are separated into either "non-powered filtering respirators" or "powered filtering or supplied-air respirators" - the tests are not determined on the facepiece style but the operation of the respirator. It would be expected that the CleanSpace respirators would be tested under the D4.3 test for powered filtering respirators.

Unless I have missed something in the standard that says you cannot have a PAPR with a half mask, or a half mask must minimise the entry of ambient atmosphere by means of a facial seal alone. If I have missed where it says either of these I am keen to know?

From Cleanspace's website: https://cleanspacetechnology.com/faqs/
How do I know if the mask is fitted correctly?
Cleanspace is a tight fitting respirator and should be fitted so that the mask fits to the face. — RPE Fit tester

I would consider the manufacture's statements to be a more authoritative source than a single question/answer on their FAQ page:
Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement
While the user manual also instructs to complete a seal check where donning the masks, the above statement indicates this isn't primarily for safety but more likely for usability given elsewhere in the manual they state that battery life / filter life are dependent on a adequate seal (i.e. with a loose seal the fan will be constantly running on/near full power to maintain the set pressure within the facepiece).

Thanks for the reply MattD2,
You may want to check with WorkSafe about their position on this as I understand they require Cleanspace to be fit tested in negative mode for it to be a valid fit test. — RPE Fit tester

Do you have a source for that claim on WorkSafe's requirements specific to CleanSpace respirators?

I find whenever asking WorkSafe for clarification on a question like this they give the standard "you have to manage the risks" response (not to blame them as their is so much variability between individual situations that a blanket claim could be never cover them all).

Or a source that the CleanSpace RPE are certified as a tight fitting facepiece under AS/NZS1716?
I am going off the information on the CleanSpace website - which they clearly say that the facepieces do not rely on a tight seal to work properly, and that they should be fit tested with the power on.
https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/Respiratory-Protection-for-Workers.pdf

Cleanspace is certified as a tight fitting facepiece under AS/NZS1716. — RPE Fit tester

CleanSpace state that their masks are not designed as tight-fitting / close-fitting RPE as they do not rely on a tight seal between the mask and the users face.

CleanSpace PAPR protection performance is not reliant on achieving a good mask seal. Annual fit testing and being clean shaven will improve a wearer’s mask fit. However, these are not required to ensure a high level of wearer respiratory protection. — Use of CleanSpace PAPRs by workers with Facial Hair - Manufacture's Statement

The CleanSpace would be considered a loose-fitting facepiece under the OSHA regulations, with an assigned protection factor of 25. This is compared with an APF of 10 for a negative pressure tight-fitting half-mask respirator, or 50 for a PAPR tight-fitting half-mask respirator. Given most will be moving from the typical negative-pressure half-mask respirators this is still a significant increase in the APF, with CleanSpaces studies showing that the actual realworld workplace protection factor will likely be even greater (at least 100 if not in the thousands).

Also it seems like the links I added above aren't working, but I'm too late to edit those posts - hopefully these links work:

Edit: Supporting info relevant to the CleanSpace respirators: — MattD2

https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/STATEMENT-MANUF-MAY082023REV2.pdf

Respiratory Protection for Workers with Facial Hair - Australia — MattD2

https://cleanspacetechnology.com/documents/product-resources/Respiratory-Protection-for-Workers.pdf