My suggestions start with learning diversity and inclusiveness integrated with the advantages of discarding preconceptions and fully scoping activities to determine the requirements of positions to erase later guesswork and misconceptions.

@Venessa, while your question is possibly posed honestly, it has IMHO some extremely negative connotations. Several online articles may assist your quest for solutions. Here in NZ there is Paralympics NZ and Whaikaha. There are other sources overseas.

Interesting comments.
However, I pose the question - is the tail wagging the dog?
My belief is yes, the tail is wagging the dog and the dog is responsible for the situation.
Whether the dog enjoys being wagged by the tail is, IMHO, reflected in the earlier comments.

Jim Roddy says "It is almost a certainty that a regular tobacco habit will diminish smokers’ productivity, depreciate your real estate, annoy their non-smoking co-workers, and damage employee-manager relationships. Plus, managing this issue adds an unnecessary level of grief and liability to your business."

According to Te Whatu Ora, the Health Status Report 2023 indicated "daily smoking rates had come down below 10%, although more recent data puts that number at 6.8%".

So 90 (or 93.2) percent of the dog has to tolerate being wagged by a tail only worth 10 (or 6.8) percent. Sounds like an imbalance exists.

A question that could be asked, is how did the dog get a tail like this? This could be where this gets slightly technical so for those who don't like technical, perhaps time to zone out.

These are reasons I've observed over the last few years while I have studied.

• Most business employ workers to do a task regardless if they fit in with the business culture,
• Most people can't describe their organisation culture because they don't understand the components,
• Business cultures don't generate money according to business owners, so there is little desire to understand them,
• It's easier to deal with people than concepts,
• Command and control management styles don't require understanding of position responsibilities and roles,
• Time is money and concepts don't generate income,
• Working in the business is easier than working on the business,
• 97 percent of NZ businesses employ less than 19 people (Stats NZ).

.

So merely employing people to do an activity rather than ensuring they fit in with how things are done, creates the situation (IMHO) where the tail wags the dog and the dog ends up chasing its own tail.

And, "is refusing to hire a smoker considered discrimination? Although refusing to hire a smoker may not be considered fair or reasonable, it is not unlawful" NZ Business. Further, “New Zealand employers can advertise for non-smokers only, without violating the Human Rights Act” NZ Business.
For organisations with smokers, perhaps it is time to either write or implement a non-smoking (and vaping) policy. When it comes to WEPR, remember the dog makes up the bulk and tail is just the waggy thing and the back end.

Just my 2 cents worth.

@Sandra Nieuwoudt, I see three aspects here.

• Secondary containment of hazardous products in containers below the threshold,
• 20 litre containers with flammable contents, and
• Preparation for discussing these items with the SLT.

With regards secondary containment of hazardous products in containers below the threshold, you mention

these chemical containers are glass and connected to instruments, they cannot be stored within a chemical safety cabinet due to the type of test and is not practical to connect and disconnect each day.

Some in our Snr Management team feels that our H&S Reps are overdoing the use of secondary containment, they mentioned it is not practical and want a set criteria when to use secondary containment or not.
My opinion is we potentially have low probability of spillage/breakage but the consequence is high. — Sandra Nieuwoudt

As with all hazards, the first step is to identify the hazard. I personally record a second step based on the activity or action that will create harm from the hazard.

In your situation, the hazard could be a class 3 liquid stored in an old glass container sitting on a metal stand. The action or activity could be the glass container falling off the metal stand and breaking.

Once you get to this point, doing a risk assessment becomes straight forward. Documented risk assessments cease to be opinions and head down the path of becoming operating procedures.

To establish a threshold for smaller containers, you may wish to refer to the SDS of the product and section 4 - Hazardous substance information - of "Working safely with hazardous substances" from the Hazardous Substances Toolbox. Keep in mind that with change, resistance will occur so consider involvement at worker level.


20 litre containers with flammable contents. You said

We also have a 20 liter jerry cans with solutions with the potential of leaking due to the tap on the side not at the top. Changing them to be at the top is not practical due to the weight of the container and the frequency of use.

We have discussed fire/electrical risk, and we also had incidents where the area had to be locked out due to breakage. — Sandra Nieuwoudt

From the incident investigations there will be, hopefully, a documented record describing recommended or required improvements. I believe this is your starting point. Should the documentation be lacking in detail or unavailable, consider conducting investigations retrospectively. @Steve H's comments may be included with the recommendations.


Preparation for discussing these items with the SLT is based, IMHO, on the above. Your relationship and communication channels with the SLT are probably well established. Equally, your methods of working with lab people could also be entrenched. As a suggestion, consider if you are doing health and safety by yourself or co-ordinating the knowledge and efforts of everyone so production goals can be achieved.


My 2 cents worth. :cool:

Hmm. That sucks.

The landlord/building owner did a walkaround and now we have this huge list of all the cupboards and shelving in the laboratory they want restraint — Sandra Nieuwoudt

WorkSafe have some FAQs for property management here. Interesting reading especially the intent.

I agree with you on this Sandra -

i do know HSWA requires a PCBU to review and revise control measures in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work Regulations — Sandra Nieuwoudt

but not very far. Your company is also a PCBU and PCBUs with overlapping duties "must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities with all other PCBUs who have a duty in relation to the same matter." (HSWA s34). The interpretation here is that there is engagement not 'command and control'.

Taking into consideration the guidelines from WorkSafe (and before anyone jumps up and down with their interpretation, who do you think the courts listen to? Little old you or the suits from Wellington?) decide on both where overlapping duties lie and where they don't. You may want to consider where overlapping activities occur for HSWA to apply.
The overlapping activity could begin with who supplied and installed the shelving and cupboards, when was it done and what is stored.

You may want to also review what hazards have been identified during the inspection, the associated harm and likelihood of that harm (HSWA s22) in order to determine the best controls (HSWA (GRWM Regs) s6).

However, it's possible this won't address the issue you and others face with commercial landlords or property managers both now and in the future.
Telling or insinuating the landlord should pull their head in is probably justified but not politic. The people who should be discussing this with the landlord are senior management as areas of responsibility like this and decision making should be outlined in the building lease.

Food for thought.

This is the current state of evaluating Worker Productivity.
Comments would be appreciated.

 
Definition of worker productivity
The output measurement of a worker or group of workers within a specific timeframe.

My original definition of worker productivity
The effective output of a worker or group of workers in a given work environment who have instructions, resources, of sound mental wellbeing, focus without distractions.

Factors affecting productivity - in no particular order

• Workload
• Conflicting dynamics
• Individual/Team motivation
• Work environment
• Defined goals
• Communication
• Knowledge and training
• Concentration
• Well-being

Activities to improve worker productivity - in no particular order

• be appreciative
• look at the big picture
• collaborate and communicate
• communicate regularly and effectively
• cut out the excess
• delegate
• remove distractions
• eliminate unnecessary meetings
• give feedback
• allow flexible working and time off
• be goals focused
• hire people, not CV’s
• provide incentives
• macro-manage
• match tasks to skills
• remove micro-management
• on-boarding
• optimise communication
• optimise meetings
• clear productivity metrics
• recognise and reward employees
• roster workers at the right times
• support self-care
• minimise stress in the workplace
• allow telecommuting
• provide time off
• provide training and development
• transparency
• suitable workplace conditions

Measuring employee productivity - in no particular order

• The amount of work completed/ goals met
• The quality of work completed
• Amount of time spent on a task
• Time-tracking software
• Amount of profit

Providing employees with the tools - in no particular order

• Mobile app and data
• Curated content
• Surveys for feedback

I will confess I was avoiding this discussion but the temptation got too much or perhaps I now have too much time for my mind to roam and have fingers enough to tap out searches via Google.

Anyone read this? Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004. Part 7.18 S(5) specifically relates to this discussion while there are several other sections that apply to day to day (or in some cases night to night) when driving a motor vehicle or using roads (but then what constitutes a road could be a discussion for another time).

My 2 cents worth

I had a brief read of the booklet @Robb linked to.
While it contains information that could be used to develop learning sessions, I don't see how it can assist developing a learning session. I'll briefly expand on my earlier post.

Learning outcomes are many and will include what the organisation expects following training sessions, what the learners expect to know, and what the facilitator expects the learners to know. All three are different as they are for three different stakeholders who while they heading in a similar direction, have different interpretations of what success looks like.

Management may be looking at increased productivity, workers could be looking at new techniques and the facilitator looking at improving delivery techniques. To achieve them all, the three groups need to end up in the same final location.

In order to get to that location means planning. So in an education situation, planning is usually done by a person skilled to design a course, program etc.

Teaching children is like filling an empty vessel. Pour the information and later (in life) the child will work out what is relevant and discard what is not.

Adults are different. They are already fill with knowledge from their earlier childhood education plus all they have accumulated from their multitude of life experiences. So there is not enough space to just pour in more knowledge like when we were kids.
Also, adults have been through the phase of discarding irrelevant information and learned how to apply that. (Every watched adults switch off at training sessions because of the method of delivery or content is not interesting?). They know what's good and what's not.

So coming back to planning, start with the idea and then talk with the people who the idea will affect (management and workers). If they are not interested, it's a dead duck in the water. If they are interested, what are they interested in and why. This contributes to learning outcomes, assessment design, content, context and delivery methods. Incidentally as this is part of WEPR, the network should already be established (if not, a good time to start).

Without educational training, (I can recommend SIT for this), my observations are that inhouse delivery of H&S knowledge by untrained people either becomes a tick-box exercise, a one-shot wonder, boring, or is outsourced and becomes generic.

You don't need to be a subject matter expert to be an inhouse educator. It helps but is not necessary. But to encourage workers to learn, you do need to know what you are doing when you are in front of adults. They are as wise, if not wiser than you, and know all the tricks of the trade.

I guess that's worth 20 cents today.
Cheers.


PS
Attached is part of a proposal I'll be taking to a company engaged in the construction industry. I’ve had verbal discussions with management who have approved the submission of a proposal. Once I have feedback from company stakeholders I'll create a draft program with learning outcomes, assessments, lesson plans, content, learning and assessment locations, refine existing elements in the outline, and send to learners, management, peers and subject matter experts for moderation and feedback.

Hey @Shayla McCormick,
Some suggestions of why and how before you get inundated with information about what.

Consider what the outcomes for the learners will be, so you can work out what they need to learn. You can then work out methods to assist them to learn.
Decide on how the learning will occur - teacher centered or learner led. This relates to delivery methods, learning outcomes, content and assessments.
Keep in mind that adult learners learn for reasons known to them - they are not taught like children.

ShopCare may be of assistance.


Just my 2 cents worth.

@Lucille N
So if workers sign something - in this case a site risk register - what is the purpose and how will the purpose be measured?
What are the benefits and who benefits?
Is there a defined outcome or is the activity a tick box exercise?
Who is driving the need to sign?
What is the opinion of the workers?
What would signing achieve?

Is the system immature or misguided?

While there is a difference between guidance and advice, the decision will ultimately be yours.

Just my 2 cents worth.

@Lucille N
No disrespect but why are you asking this question?
What is its purpose?

Too many unknowns without any defining criteria.

Just a question.

While this sounds good in theory, practical application may be limited with a majority of businesses probably unable to provide a reasonable budget.

As part of my studies, I briefly looked at New Zealand businesses. This is what I found.

In Feb 2022 according to Stats NZ, there were 592,705 businesses in NZ.
Of these, the 97.1% employed who 19 people or less are classified as small to medium enterprises. (NZ and Australia share the same cutoff number while in Europe and the US, the cutout is 49 employees).
Doing the maths, this equates to 575,703 SMEs and 17,001 larger enterprises.

Given NZ's GDP in 2021 was US$247.23B according to Trading Economics, in NZ dollars this is $427.11B.

A KPMG report (page 3, para ) determined that SMEs contribute about 25% of the NZ GDP.

Again doing the maths, on average each SME contributes NZ$185,474 to GDP while the average for each large enterprise is NZ$18,842,104.

So going back to the number of NZ SMEs - 575,703 - who are easier to target because there are more of them and are more likely to take shortcuts due to the disparity of income, is it not time to revisit how H&S is supported in NZ?

I like the idea Peter and believe it has merit, just not sure it will gain traction with smaller businesses given their average financial earnings.

Just my 2 cents worth

@Matthew Bennett
Now you have had an opportunity to read the spreadsheet, try changing "Working at heights" to "Collecting raindrops" and decide whether you are looking at a hazard or an activity.

Decide where the potential for harm exists. Is it at the activity stage? If not, where?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi @Matthew Bennett.
I got the impression you were on a fishing expedition.
In this post, you make some valid points but I'm not sure they relate to your original question.

Looking at

What is your favorite / preferred, succinct definition of 'Working at Height'? — Matthew Bennett

there is an assumption that "Working at Height" is a hazard. Trying to define working at height as a hazard is, as you point out, likely to result in innocuous definitions.

As an option, consider "Working at height" not as a hazard, but as an activity. Abet a general activity similar to say - driving a car or walking across a sports field.

If working at height is an activity, then evaluate what actual or potential hazard does this activity present?
In this activity, the hazard will usually be a fall to a lower level or in some cases falling and being suspended.

The harm may be anything from nothing through to life changing or life threatening injuries.
Possibly, the hazard is what happens before the harm occurs but after the activity.

As you also mentioned, context needs to be taken into account. Continuing from working at height as an activity, where will the activity occur?
Consider the location the activity occurs to be a hazardous situation. Several have been mentioned - walking down stairs, working on roofs, working near unprotected edges, walking on a sloping surface. if these are the source of the hazard, then an opportunity exists to control the hazard proactively rather than reactively (though this is a topic for another occasion).



How does this fit together?
Start with an activity - working at height.

Consider the hazardous situations.
In this discussion I found 19 but there may be more

Determine the hazard.
There are many but most involve falling, some stepping and a few being bounced.

Look at the hazard outcome.
Most outcomes result in landing on a lower level though some result in being suspended.

Then consider the harm caused by the hazard outcome.
And this can vary.

Attached is a table for discussion.

Just my 2 cents worth

@Matthew Bennett,
You first asked

What is your favorite / preferred, succinct definition of 'Working at Height'? — Matthew Bennett

An open question with few parameters or limitations.

MattD2 replied

"Work where there is the potential to fall from one level to another which increase the risk of injury." — MattD2

and you said

and while it does 'define' working at height, I don't like it. — Matthew Bennett

So what don't you like about the definition Matthew? And why?
Is it the wording? Is it an interpretation or interpretations? Is it as a definition as a hazard? Or as a risk? Or as a definition of harm. Or as a event or events? Or as a training topic?
So again, what don't you like about the definition Matthew? And why?


Once you express what you don't like about the definition - either MatD2's or any in current usage - then your question has a foundation to evaluate and we can provide feedback for you to come to a conclusion.

And your reply to MattD2's question, "Curious though of the actual question behind your question..." could then be revisited.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi @Gail Swanepoel,
A difference exists between competent, certified and qualified.
An educator needs to hold applicable qualifications, be certified to educate to a standard or level, and competent to apply their learned knowledge.
Learners may optionally acquire specific qualifications, optionally be assessed as capable to a given standard, and practically demonstrate a level of competency by applying their learned knowledge while being observed by an educator or person with similar but greater experience.

While a competent person may have knowledge, they may not have qualifications or assessed as certified.
A person may gain qualifications or certification yet not achieve competency.

Some activities can be taught by competent people who do not hold qualifications or certification.
Other activities, and this will vary, legally require the person in the teaching position to hold a relevant qualification(s) or certification(s).
In some cases, the need for qualification or certification is both recommended and advantageous.

Gail, while the final recommendation is one only you can make, it maybe flavoured by legislative requirements and what risk the organisation is exposed to.

My 2 cents worth again.

@Rachael,
Not sure what the correction was about for the Federal Communications Commission mantra.
Could you cast a little more light on what the item needing correction please.

Cheers

Hi @Courtney
The HOP principle is sound and based on fact.
The belief by Anthony Mitchell is exactly that - a belief that is not based on fact.

That people make mistakes is human nature and the reasoning covered by HOP here.
How to ensure all accidents are preventable can be done by people doing nothing that has any risk attached - ergo wrap them in cotton wool. Anthony Mitchell states his belief here.

So what's a fact? Something that is can be determined by researching the evidence.
While a belief may be true, it is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values.
Source - Colorado State University

Personally I admire people for their beliefs though when serious injury or fatal risk exists, I prefer to rely on facts.

My 2 cents worth

Hi Stuart,
These are my thoughts.

The term "tight fitting respirator" is commonly associated with negative pressure respirators where air is drawn by the wearer inhaling through a filter usually attached directly to the respirator. This requires the respirator to fit the face (in the case of half face respirators) or head (in the case of a full face respirator) so contaminants cannot be inhaled by the wearer.

Ensuring an airtight face seal while wearing this type of respirator is essential. Fit-testing is the method to ensure the respirator fits the face or head of the wearer and seals under simulated conditions. A face seal is the method to ensure the wearer has donned the respirator prior to use and is airtight sealed to the face or head or the wearer.

PAPR respirators work on the principle of supplying air at higher pressure inside the respirator than the surrounding environment therefore expelling any contaminants so they cannot be inhaled by the wearer. Usually the air is expelled around the side of the head, face and chin areas from a hood or full face mask.

Now you stated,
"Beards and Clean Space Masks
Clean Space advocate as their tight fitting masks work on a positive pressure mode so can be worn with people with beards."

A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard?

I base the question on this.
A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal.

So these are my views regarding your question which I'll repeat:
"The question is has anyone any views on testing the Clean Space masks, if so do they do it in the powered on mode or power off mode?"

IMHO your question should be directed to the manufacturer.
Cheers.

No offence @Stuart Keer-Keer but have you done any due diligence?
I get the impression that rather than asking for clarity about a chapter or two, you want information about the entire book because you have only read the dust jacket flap.

Quick research indicates that Clean Space masks clearly state on their website what type of respirator they produce. IMHO, generally, 3M are the goto organisation regarding these types of respirators.

Fit testing and face seals are two methods used for ensuring a certain type of respirator is both fit for purpose and fitted corrected. While CleanSpace Respirators (to give them their correct name) do reference fit-testing and the appropriate AS/NZS standard, a PAPR works in a different fashion to a respirator that requires fit-testing and face seal checks.

When wearing a respirator, air comes in from somewhere. And it exists somewhere also. Knowing how the air enters and exists a respirator can assist determining whether fit testing is required.

Equally, the purpose for it's use as well as the size of the budget will determine the type of respirator. For me, it's no different than deciding whether to purchase standard LED bulbs or convert the house using smart bulbs. It depends on what I want to do and how much money I have.

So going back to the beginning, I suggest some research - 3M, Euromarc, Honeywell, GVS-rpb - and then have a discussion.

My 2 cents worth.

NZTA has information regarding these situations:

Driving using a valid overseas licence
Driving a small passenger vehicle

Discussing changes with workers and coming to mutual (and often realistic) agreement is different to hearing and then imposing.