I also think that there are very few deterrents that are effective for bosses who are as morally corrupt as these two. — Chris Hyndman

But an effective punishment Chris for egregious wrong doing.

Matt, every day in New Zealand, someone gets told their particular version of cancer particularly, but many, many other illnesses are not treatable with publicly funded drug treatments, so we do already accept that life has a price in this country.

We are just as unlikely to get to zero in workplaces, just as much as road deaths, but that shouldn't stop us from having a target to aim, with the intention that we want to have a smaller total each year, as there is some crossover with these two groups, improving safety on our roads should help diminish the number of workplace deaths.

But an interesting thought is that there are in fact some situations where injury (and even death) is accepted as a potential outcome of work, such as jobs in the military, police, or even healthcare. The common aspect to this "acceptance" is that the work is primarily considered as required for the benefit of our society as a whole, rather than for the profits of an individual. — MattD2

As a former Navy boy, part of the deal in signing up and swallowing the Queens Shilling, is that you accept that from time to time, you are going to be in harms way, likewise the same is true for Police. Can't speak for healthcare, but in a properly run/funded system, the likelihood of a workplace death should be very, very low there.

The latest worker not to make it home

A man who died in a central Auckland workplace incident on Tuesday was crushed by timber while unloading at a construction site, according to a witness.

Police said they were called to the worksite site on Grey St, Onehunga, about 12.50pm where a worker had died.

Neighbours said roughly three ambulances and six police units were on the street shortly after 1pm, outside the worksite where a block of flats is being built.

Police said WorkSafe NZ had been notified of the incident. Jones said an Occupational Safety and Health vehicle arrived at the site around 4pm. — Stuff-Nathan Morton15:27, Jun 22 2022

Previous worker, not coming home again.

A 55-year-old man who died in a workplace accident at Jeff Farm at Kaiwera on Wednesday had worked at the farm for several years.

Jeff Farm, on Old Coach Road between Mataura and Clinton, is owned by the Salvation Army. — Stuff-Rachael Kelly15:14, Jun 16 2022

The workplace death before that

Man in his 30s killed in workplace accident in rural Auckland — Stuff- Melanie Earley14:06, Jun 01 2022

A person has died after falling from height near the fruit-picking hub of Motueka.

Emergency services were called to a workplace incident in the Moutere area, in the Tasman District, at around 2.30 on Wednesday afternoon. — Stuff- Amber Allott20:20, May 18 2022

Police have named the man killed in a workplace incident in Gisborne last week.

Maurice Dooling, 47, died on Jukes Carriers Stanley Rd in Awapanui around 11.15am on Wednesday, April 13. — Stuff- Marty Sharpe07:57, Apr 20 2022

And the man whose workplace death started this thread off

The family of an “incredible father” fatally crushed while loading a ship at Lyttelton Port never want the same thing to happen to anyone else.

Donald Grant, aged in his 70s, died at Christchurch’s Lyttelton Port on April 25 while loading the ship ETQ Aquarius at Cashin Quay. — Christchurch reporter17:00, May 06 2022

This was a particularly egregious case Peter,and you would hope that no New Zealand company was operated in the manner described in the Guardian story, but I would like to see this as a possible option here. It would be one more step on the way for us to change the workplace death/serious harm accident rate in this country.

https://www.trdrivertraining.co.nz/courses/load-restraint-load-unload-a-goods-service-vehicle/

https://avtnz.co.nz/services/load-restraint/

https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/truck-load-security/

The official New Zealand truck loading code

What sort of vehicle Sheri? Heavy, or Ute/Car Trailer loads, are you looking for attendees to achieve Unit Standard 1753 (Load and unload a general freight vehicle).

What about the previous years serious harm accidents, the year before that, remembering that we've been knocking off 50-60 workers on average each year for many years, likewise serious accidents, and while some victims of a SH accident may make a full recovery in a single year, some will take longer than a year, and some may not ever fully recover.

ACC is focused on getting these folk off their books, by hook or crook (I had several ACC sponsored attendees at a Test & Tag course I used to run- many were either physically unfit or had memory issues, one guy bailed by morning tea, claiming it was too much for him)

And you are ignoring the cost of deaths, but using your figure of $294M and the death cost of $300M, would give us around $300M to play with (using half of that total), I would plug $150M into advertising (sans Meerkats please), trying for that attitudinal shift that Keith's reference indicates is a big ask, the other $150M needs to go into WorkSafe's investigation/prosecution budget along with fines, generated by successful prosecutions.

It's interesting to dig unto ACC's budgets and reports, when you read that they had 1300 death claims for workplace induced illnesses, I think the question I posed in the title of this thread stands, and needs to be addressed.

Steve, I read risk homeostasis theory by Gerald Wilde some time ago. It comes the closet (for me) to explain why people do what they do and thus (for me) offers a possible and effective long term solution. — KeithH

Just been reading a paper by Wilde on that Keith, it is an interesting explanation of the paradox of spending money to achieve a positive change in one area only to see a reciprocal rise in a negative aspect somewhere else- calls into question Waka Kotahi's spending on advertising it's Road To Zero target (197 Million), along with the infamous WS Meerkat ads.(2.7 Million)

Similarly, the target level of risk is seen as the controlling variable in the causation dynamic of the injury rate. It follows that the basic strategy of injury prevention should be to reduce
the level of risk that people are willing to accept. — Gerald J S Wilde

Some fag packet calculations, 50 workplace deaths = 300 Million per year, the 2200 serious harm accidents are a bit more problematic, but for the sake of conjecture, let's say each SH accident is half of the lost opportunity cost of a WP death of 6 million. So that would be around 6,600 Million per year for serious harm accidents.(I do realize that isn't a single year total, but we keep adding to that cost each year with subsequent deaths/serious harm accidents)

Could be kind of interesting to see what could be achieved if we were to spend 50% of that total each year to reduce the level of risk that collectively we're prepared to accept, over two or three years.

Lets face it though, We, as a country simply put money ahead of safety, in every aspect of life.

How many people's first car purchase took safety into account?
How many of us would rather do a job at home rather than pay someone else to do it, without giving further thought into whether we can do the job safely?
How many of us do things in our private lives that we would never be able to do at work?

Workplace deaths require a culture change, which doesn't happen overnight, and rarely happen due to legislation change. What it does require is a desire to change. — Aaron Marshall

Why do you think that money proceeds safety Aaron? Matt & Andrew's argument appears to be that we're already spending enough to cover off safety in the workplace, and that being the case it's acceptable to have collateral damage of 50- 60 workplace deaths, and 2200plus serious harm accidents each year (with the serious harm stats steadily growing)

, it is everyone's job to 'do' H&S. — Amber van Polanen

Exactly grasshopper

rather than that NZ's plateau is higher than any other country's. — MattD2

And that's the rub that sees us nail more workers with either death or as bad, a serious accident that they either don't fully recover from, or spend a long time in recovery. I don't disagree that CMS charges may not be the answer to close that gap, but I am certain more/better enforcement will.

Interesting that Ports Of Auckland and their CEO (at the time of the last workers death there) have already been charged by Maritime New Zealand in relation to that workers death. They appear to take a much more proactive approach to workplace deaths/serious injury, than their colleagues working with the same legislation at WorkSafe

Because our current economics system drives businesss to continously "improve" efficiency of work using financial profit maximisation as its main KPI. — MattD2

And would that change if company officers potentially could face Corporate Manslaughter charges?

It could be that improvements may be implementation of existing clauses of legislation or regulations. It could also be that improvements may require changes to existing or creation of new legislation or regulations.

I don't take a punitive approach since experience has shown me it achieves little - generally it creates a negative effect. — KeithH

The problem with not taking a punitive approach Keith is evident in the appalling driving standards you'll witness daily on our roads, quite apart from speeding, sit and watch an intersection controlled by stop signs and see how many fail to come to a complete stop and check the intersecting road is clear in both directions, or the number of folk yapping on cell phones or updating their social media.

Keith, I have to think "We" is all of us, as many have said, we can't impose "safety" on those below, we can't eradicate "stupid" and very few are working with unlimited budgets. Sheri makes some very valid points about giving workers the tools to do their own risk assessments but owners/directors/managers need education, support and encouragement to do what they can. And that may well mean,ceasing operations, and listening to their staff, particularly departing staff.

Part of the solution has to be a better funded regulator, ring fencing the fines that they successfully impose.has to be a part of that, but like the health system, more boots on the ground than bums on chairs in the PR department will achieve more tangible results.So some increase in funding will be needed.

Finally, I firmly believe Parliament needs to revisit the ACC legislation, it is one of the differences between NZ and other roughly similar jurisdictions, exactly what any changes (if any) should take place are the province of due process, but the ACC legislation isn't the same animal that was originally proposed or enacted.

There isn't one Rob, but neither is there a requirement for an open ended value for given PPe

Some interesting approaches to providing PPE. Can someone please point me in the direction of the HSWA Regulations that say it is legal to ask employees to contribute (money) to providing PPE when PPE is required - Maybe I've missed it — Robb

Their employer has done a risk assessment, decided on the basis of that to require their employees to wear safety shoes and decided on some options that will meet their requirements and will provide any of these options FOC to employees- there by meeting HSWA requirements.

If for whatever reason said employee wants something different, employer contributes up to their level, $200(say) and employee pays the difference. If said employee feels that employers $200 boots don't provide a sufficient level of safety, then their option to raise the matter with their H&S Rep, etc. but can't see "I don't like the supplied style, colour etc" working, but sizing could be an issue which could see the employer paying full amount (if boots had to be specially made, or to cater for a disability etc).

You misunderstood my meaning Matt, we have laws that control drivers behaviour on our roads, these laws are frequently ignored by drivers who think they know best. In effect, doing their own risk assessment. ie I can drive and talk on my cell phone, I can exceed the posted speed limit by 50Km, No one uses this road that I am about to intersect therefore I don't need to stop at this compulsory stop sign.
In the case you cite, the beak sided with the driver, probably should have been appealed by the Police Traffic Prosecutor, but that's their call.
My point is, even now, there are folk out there who will try and do less if they can get away with it, hence their question "is there a legal requirement for me to incur cost by having to do this"

I think individuals should be able to choose whether they want to take the bike or scooter or even walk. I wouldn't be focusing on whether work is liable if someone gets hurt while biking / walking to and from places for work. You get covered by ACC anyway. — Yonny Yeung

And there's the problem right there, not picking on you Yonny, but that comment is exactly why I believe ACC is a flawed concept.

ACC is very generous. If you die reasonable funeral costs are covered and if you have dependants they get cash for quite some time.If you don't die you get 80% of your lost earnings plus a truck load thrown at you to get you rehabilitated. — Andrew

A lot less generous than when it was initially introduced,Andrew. And the right to sue is the main difference between here and every where else that is killing less workers as a percentage of total workforce, it is my belief that either that has to change, or we consider Corporate Manslaughter as an alternative. The Jurisdictions that have tried it have had very few successful prosecutions, but maybe because it is a possible consequence, it resonates with BODs Owners, Managers and Staff for that matter.

Thing is, we keep doing what we're doing, folk walk out their front door in the morning and never return, or they spend months in hospital/rehab etc and return home damaged.

I refuse to believe that we can't do better

Tweak two. Two different things. ACC = compo for loss of earnings. Prosecution = bringing people to account. There is already a mechanism for that. But it is expensive to run a prosecution. More money spent by worksafe on prosecutions = less money for inspectors on the ground. — Andrew

Four dedicated liaison staff from seconded from WS to advise/ work with Police isn't going to cost much, easily covered by cutting back thinly disguised Political Party advertising masquerading as information on a number subjects. Bigger fines will help fund more inspectors, As a response to Pike River, we largely imported Austrialia's H&S laws and Regulator system, with the caveat we have put less boots on the ground, so it would seem that is part of the solution.

ACC barely covers anything, and folk are ticked and flicked off as soon as possible. One big difference between every NZ and other jurisdiction that we can compare stats with, is the lack of a right to sue. I have long held the view that this encouraged a laissez-faire approach to both Health & Safety and Product Safety. In Australia, a dodgy product will get recalled ASAP, here much slower, to move.
Prosecution for H&S violation, and suing for compensation would wind up being two different processes, one not neccesairly dependent on the other .

Here is something that is relatively untried - more prosecution / fines of workers. — Andrew

I wouldn't disagree, but stats show WS's prosecutions slowly waning of managers/owners/directors, and the level of fine that could be leveled at a worker will be in the thousands, rather than the sort of level that makes a board of Directors take a more proactive approach to H&S.,

OK so what levers would I tweak, from direct observation, most larger SMEs are doing/trying to do the right thing. So more education/support for small SMEs that currently are winging it where they can, tweak One would help with that.

Tweak One, more Inspectors on the ground for Worksafe, WS-Police Liaison Officers appointed for each main center, every serious harm accident investigated and where applicable a prosecution brought..

Tweak two, Where a serious harm/Workplace death has occurred, the ACC Legislation be amended to give the deceased nearest and dearest the opportunity to sue for damages, The one big gripe of families thrown into disarray by Dad, or Son not coming home again ever, is no-one is held accountable and they don't get their day in court.

Tweak three: Go hard and fast on the Workplace Codes Of Practice promised by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, sentencing guidelines and plain language interpretations.