Sadly too many providers do not understand Site Specific. — craig christie

Is it that they don't understand, or that in the past they have been asked for so much extra generic information to be included in the SSSP by clients that they now take the path of least resistance?

A death of a staff member would destroy morale.
A sick staff member would mean a full shutdown, brand damage, customer relationship damage, ability for staff to earn a living etc. — Michael Wilson

But what is the actual risk of death of a staff member from Covid, and actually furthermore the marginal risk (can't think of a better term, along the same lines as marginal cost) of death above contracting Covid from the general population?
And all the other aspects are business risks and so "Health and Safety" should not be used as a justification for managing those risks.

Imagine the impact on a workplace... — Michael Wilson

Michael, are you able to elaborate a bit on what you are meaning by the impacts on the workplace?

We are, however, constantly being asked to add policies and procedures to our SSSP by clients trying desperately to fulfil their duties, perhaps without knowing quite how, so trying to tick every box in the book. — Linley Kerr

Is this how we have lost our way?

Possibly the problem is that we are not really clear on what we should be being specific about?
Two causes of less-than-useful SSSPs I have typically come across are:

• "Specific" is interpreted as identifying all risks that could ever perceivably be present and providing details how these will be controlled. However this usually runs into the issue of too much information needing to be recorded and so the controls are then generalised to statements such as "wear PPE" or "read the SDS" to save on space, which results in SSSPs that are actually not specific at all.
• For the sake of efficiency the main body of the SSSP is a standard template that does not get (or worse is not allowed to be) reviewed or revised to be specific to the contract (save changing the contract name, location and personal). Which has created inconsistency/ambiguity where multiple companies are interacting together on the same work with different actual expectations - main contractors, clients, designers, MSQA consultants, subcontractors, etc. (i.e. the opposite of 3Cs).

Instead should we actually be considering that the specific of the SSSP is that the SSSP is an agreement between a specific client and specific contractor for how work for that contract will be suitably managed (i.e. planned, resources, executed, monitored). Understanding that both the client and the contractor (and others) have their own processes for safety management and so the SSSP must be a merger of these systems, and will look different depending on which contractor and which client is involved. As part of this agreement certain high risk work specific to the contract works can be discussed and expectations for how that work will be managed during the contract can be agreed between all parties involved.

Please read the attached and tell me if you think we can use ratios and triangles. — Chris Peace

Something that I find curious, but seems to have been greatly overlooked, when discussing Heinrich's Triangle is the fact that this concept/theory was developed while Heinrich was working for an insurance company and what influence this had on his research. It wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility that the findings and recommendations for improving industrial safety from his research were not actually in relation to improving occupational health and safety but in reducing the actuarial risk if his employer? i.e. it is better focus on how to reduce the vary common lower value insurance payouts for equipment damage and minor injuries rather than trying to prevent the uncommon catastrophic incidents (for which we have already somewhat managed the actuarial risk by having a maximum payout cap included in the policy).

Hypothetically (hopefully) how quick do you think that customer would bend their rules if they could not get the services/contractors they needed (i am thinking speciilised work that only a few people in NZ can do).

I just heard a major accounting firm is having vaccine mandates in their New Zealand offices. This will be interesting to see. — Michael Wilson

I want to see the justification for that one, it going to be interesting.

Hmm. I might die but can't be bothered getting the vax. But $100 will do it. Smart workers at the Warehouse! — Andrew

Maybe they are smart - get vaccinated early and only get the peace of mind... or wait until someone offers me $100, or a free phone, or a car, (and the peace of mind).

Equally in HSWA PCBUs who "manage (sic) or control (sic) a workplace must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplace, the means of entering and exiting the workplace, and anything arising from the workplace are without risks to the health and safety of any person. (HSWA S37(1)). — KeithH

The final test for reasonably practicable includes for consideration of "...whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk." - normally this is considered from a monetary viewpoint to determine if there is reasonable grounds to not take a certain action. However costs are not just financial, in this case should we not consider the cost of forfeiting a human right and make sure that it is not disproportional to the action being taken, i.e. is the reduction in risk from mandating vaccinations disproportional to the workers giving up their right to refuse medical treatment?

If the effect of a Covid infection amongst the business's workforce would have a seriously damaging impact on the business, the business should consider available options to mitigate that possible damage. If vaccinations and/or infection testing (several testing methods could be considered) potentially reduce the severity of infections if they occur, or the likelihood that infections will occur, or some other measures might reduce exposures to possibly infected people, are those reasonably practicable steps to take? — Rowly Brown

No. Not if the reason is purely to manage an negative impact on the business (implying financial loss). We should never accept profit as a valid reason for limiting any persons rights.
Is it ok for a company to suppress a worker from speaking out about the dangers of a product that are being kept from the public because it would damage the companies reputation and profits? (i.e. limit the worker's right to freedom of expression)

This is taking the question of mandatory vaccinations outside of the pure consideration of the health and safety of the workers and others affected by the business. And unfortunately this is where I think most general business that are talking mandatory vaccination are really going with it. While on the surface the reasons given are about protecting their workers or customers/clients from Covid, but underneath that there are worries about protecting against either; the loss of business (customers going elsewhere, e.g. shopping online or to a place that has mandated vaccinated workers), and/or the increase in costs (e.g. additional cleaning/barriers/etc. or employees having to take sick leave).
Which I fully understand as for a lot of SMEs minor changes in these can have a devastating effect on the business, even to the point of the business failing completely.
It is a rough place to be, but as others have said communication is the key. Consult with all stakeholders in your businesses (workers and customers/clients), and act in good faith (especially not covering things in the guise of "for safety").

The need for Regulations can be better assessed when the rationale for them is well understood. At present the model of "cut & paste" from other jurisdictions as a knee jerk reaction to issues not well understood will continue to produce less than optimal results. — Rowly Brown

Yes! We don't need more regulations, we need regulations that work.

when there is another alternative to assist employers to meet their H&S obligations and that is by means of testing (PCR) as testing is arguable a better control measure than vaccines because research has shown that vaccinated workers can still carry the virus. — robyn moses

It is frustrating for me that "this virus" seems to have caused everyone to think that there is one single "silver bullet" to beat Covid that everyone should be following. Even the advice to complete a risk assessment for mandatory vaccinations is worded in a way that implies the process is - decide you want to mandate vaccinations, then do a risk assessment to show that mandatory vaccinations will reduce the risk"
We need to stop discussing this as an exclusive this or that issue and start discussing it as a range of actions we can take to best manage the risks.

The government is pushing the vaccination card - let them do that, provide your employees that want to get vaccinated with the time to do so (and to recover afterwards if needed), but don't overstep the mark thinking that if you can get all your workers vaccinated you will have sufficiently managed the risk.

I don't see how they are pushing PCR testing as an direct alternative to vaccinations. Firstly being that you are still in the same boat as vaccinations since you cannot make anyone get tested as again it is a medical treatment (the government has established that requiring mandatory testing for managing a Covid outbreak, e.g. for contact tracing and where a person has been identified as a close contact / at higher risk of being infected, is allowable under the bill of rights. However I do not think "to allow a business to operate (or operate more freely)" would be an acceptable reason to limit a person's right to refuse PCR testing). And secondly it is not equivalent - vaccines reduce the risk of a person experiencing serious symptoms (and could be claimed to reduce the risk of infections from not having someone coughing/sneezing the virus all over the workplace, but then again it could also increase the risk as there will now be more asymptomatic / mildly symptomatic cases coming to work that can still transmit the virus), whereas the PCR testing identifies (after a 1-2+ days) those who have the virus present in their systems so they can be removed from the workplace to reduce the risk of infections... i.e. they both have the potential to reduce the risk, just by different means and therefore should be applied where (if) they are suitable to the work/workplace.

In my opinion a NZ business's Covid risk assessment should be focused on the risks that the business creates for a worker (or a person affected by the activities) regarding Covid, in the framework of a increase of risk compared to a "normal" member of the public, e.g.
A typical retail business would not require any more controls over what the NZ Government requirements for the general public (face masks while indoors, limited occupancy, etc.).
Working in a workplace with people more vulnerable to Covid (e.g. nursing homes) requires controls to manage the risk of transmission of the virus to those people.
Work which increases the exposure to the virus (e.g. Covid testing labs, MIQ facilities) requires controls to manage the risk of infections of workers during work.

This is ofcorse with a viewpoint from a safety perspective... a business continuity perspective would look somewhat different, and we need to be sure that the controls that are put in place in the name of safety are not the guise of safety but in fact only there for other purposes.

This seems like another attempt to contract out of their responsibilities as an employer? — Jarron Urlic

I don't see it that way - employers have to manage the risk, if they have assessed that the risk to their workers due to their work is not significantly reduced by mandatory vaccination then they shouldn't require it. If a client/customer has assessed mandatory vaccination will for reduce the risk for their work in their workplace then they should require it (hoping it is not just a knee-jerk blanket policy). For ease of doing business the first company can organis their work so that only workers that are happy to disclose they are vaccinated work for the second company. No contracting out.

Don't be surprised if what management dangle or require are the factors creating the stress and fatigue. — KeithH

Worker: "The stress management course you are making me take is stressing me out!"

Looks like sanity prevails Former border worker who lost her job after not getting jabbed loses High Court challenge — Steve H

However this is only determining if the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 requirement for border workers to be vaccinated for specific work was against the Bill of Rights - It sounds like they will also be taking the case to the Employment Court for a ruling on how she was dismissed. So basically the decision was that the government ordering you to be vaccinated if you want to do specific work does not impede on your right to decide not to get vaccinated.

It will get trickier in employment court, but it will come down to if the employer acted in good faith during the process the resulted in the termination of the employment contract.
As it stands the worker has decided to not get vaccinated (as is their right to do so) and the employer has said "only vaccinated people can do the role that you have been employed for" (and also under the government's vaccination order the worker has a responsibility to not do that role - assumption is the role is listed in sch2 of the order).
Now to the actual issue - how the worker was treated; basically if the employer said "you have to get vaccinated or your fired" that is not right, but if they said "anyone doing your role is required by the government to be vaccinated, and unfortunately we do not have any other positions available that you would be suitable for, therefore we will have to let you go". (you have already kind of hit on this thought)

The main problem is that this only relates to specific roles covered under the vaccination order... and therefore the decision by the High Court provides very little to the conversation about requiring vaccinations in general workplaces

Agree that if the employment agreement states that - however, wouldn't the agreement be invalid as it goes against the HSWA?? Cant contract out of the duty in this way..... — steve r

True - I was mainly just bringing the question back to the original point of the thread.
This would technically mean the PCBU could be up for a $10k/$50k fine under R15 as they are wouldn't be exempt from R15(2) by R16... but it would have to be a pretty arrogant/foolish PCBU to get to the stage where they are being prosecuted for this!

a worker genuinely and voluntarily chooses to... — steve r

This would not apply if their employment contract

require their guides to provide their own gear such as helmets, harness, carabiners, lanyards etc. — Riki Brown

as they would not be genuinely volunteering to provide their own PPE.

While checking the MOH notices for something else I noticed that "Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 Renewal Notice (No 3) 2021" was gazzetted on 8th Spetember (came into force 19th September). As I understand it, this would now mean that the pause on statutory evacuation trials is back in place as was in place during the original hold period.
https://www.gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2021-go3885

Regarding the statutory requirement for providing information to workers the regulations include for "...or a condensed version of the key information from the safety data sheet (for example, a product safety card)..." or similar statement.
Still have to have obtain the full SDS when "first supplied or after it has been amended though.

R2.11 Hazardous Substances Regulations

the legal requirements of when face covering are mandatory are included in COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 9) 2021 (specifically 17A).
The order doesn't include any statement of "premise open to the public" but the list of premises are basically those open to the public.