Just as a side thought. Passion belongs in the bedroom, not the workplace.

Its a grossly over used word and I cringe every time I hear it.

No.

Hazards, or "hazard management" is a great Make Work scheme where people can wander around looking busy without actually achieving anything. (based on a hazard definition of a thing that can hurt)

Risk, or risk management, should be the centre. That way we are forced to focus on the really important / dangerous stuff (based on a risk definition of the probability of the thing badly hurting someone.)

Since its Friday, I'll give you another concept and formula.

Its not about speed. Its all about stopping.

Stopping distance = Thinking Distance + Braking Distance

where Braking distance (D) = v^2 / (2ug) (v = velocity, u is the coefficient of friction and g is thee acceleration due to to gravity

So you are talking about a crash. its a bit late then. Much more important to think about stopping before you crash

And the pedant in me reckons speed isn't the determinant of time to react. Distance is..

This is why we thing about things like driver fatigue, wear on tyres, sunlight. All unrelated to speed. Until you need to stop.

Speed isn't the issue. But it is a nice distraction and keeps lots of people happily employed.

The issue is failing to drive to the conditions.

But back to the OP.

There is no point at all having rules / standards if they are not complied with. And if there is non-compliance there needs to be a consequence. If there isn't then you are simply condoning the non compliance.

Obeying the posted speed limit seems to be the most basic standard. There is no excuse for exceeding it. So, anyone who does needs to be managed. HR should assist with this - dont let them whimp out. Assure them their DEI policy development isnt that important.

I'm not in favour of any tolerance (eg over 5kph). Standards are standards. Set them. manage them.
- use discretion on what is managed on a case by case basis
- be open to any mitigating reasons that supports an argument 5kph over the limit isnt the crime of the century.

(and its not just about safety. Its also about excessive wear and tear on the vehicle along with excess fuel consumption. There is also company reputation damage risk .


And what's wrong with setting the cruise control?

The legislation provides that an employer has to provide PPE. And it is in keeping with that legislation that an employer cant pass the cost of the PPE onto the employee. That lasts for as long as the person is employed by the employer. And, arguably, for so long as the employee is exposed to the hazards the PPE is supposed to protect.

However the PPE is company property. A business is quite withing their rights (if provided for in the employment agreement) to recover the reasonable value of un-retuned company property. Be that PPE or some other property. At the point an employee leaves employment it is no longer PPE.

A cracker I came across a few years back was an 8 page SOP on how to get out of a ute safely

(created after an employee sprained an ankle stepping out of the drivers seat)

And more recently, in an attempt to keep SOP's simple they were reduced to 2 pages. By using a size #4 font.

To measure effectiveness you have to have something to measure. "Improvement" is far too broad - so we would need to refine it. Improving what?

Improving workplace safety culture?. No. that is way too broad and no Inspector could ever claim to have been the catalyst for that. And it takes too long to change culture.

Improving worker engagement. No. It actually takes workers to engage. And they will do, or not do that irrespective of an inspectors involvement. But lets take it a step further. Lets say an Inspector can show he improved worker engagement. Just what did this improved worker engagement achieve? If they achieve nothing, then the inspector achieved nothing.

Improved quality of PPE being issued. But was the lower quality causing any problems. And did the better quality actually achieve anything.

Improving the number of work place injuries. How is this measured. Sure cut numbers might be reduced. But the one back strain that caused three months off work slipped past.

Improved worker training? but what did this training achieve?

See where I am going with this.

Looks to me like a scheme to make things up.

So lets go back to basic principles. What is an Inspector there for? They are there to ensure a "duty holder takes responsibility for identifying and managing the risks they create or can control." That is a long way removed from "being a catalyst for improvement"

So perhaps we are aiming to measure the wrong thing.

(Thats putting aside compliance measurements)

PPE is company property. (unless the employee provides their own)

I have a clause in the Employment Agreement that allows me to recover outstanding debts and costs from an employee's final pay.

This might be for a staff loan, excess leave or unreturned safety boots which are company property.

That said I don't recall ever using this clause for company issued PPE. I suppose I could. But I would have to work out depreciated value based on wear and tear. Who can be bothered doing that? If I didnt recover the correct amount I could end up with more problems.

And I dont expect a manky pair of work boots to be returned - it doesn't send a good message to the next poor sod that would have to wear them. "hey we are such cheapskates here's a tatty old pair of boots you can wear". That even assuming they were checked as still fit for purposes.

I just write it off. Look upon it as a contribution to the broader society. One more person out there with safety boots.

Bloke suffers a workplace accident and loses a bit of his ear. No lost time and looks like just a visit to the doctors.

Gee, what I would give to be part of that accident investigation! We'd certainly see the old "swiss cheese" coming into play. And it would really test our "no blame" concepts to an investigation.

He is dead right.

Of course we need standardized systems ./ processes. But beyond a framework proportional to the risk environment this becomes "look busy" type of work.

So the effort should be put into developing leaders. But not "safety leaders".

We need more effort put into developing business leaders how can work with and through others to achieve their business objectives. And of course "safety" should be woven into this - but not treated as a separate task. Theres a lot of "Look busy " work in "safety Leadership"

Audits tend to be a snap shot of a sample tested against some kind of standard. Usually to determine a level of compliance. They never determine that you are a "safe" organisation.

There purpose isn't to pick up "weak signals". Though you may have a good auditor who will notice non-audited things and will make either verbal / suggestions / recommendations or will make them in the audit report.

It would be foolish to rely on audits as a method for picking up potential disaster warnings. We need to be much more proactive than that.

I'm struggling to think of the last time we had someone who didn't want to come back on a light duties return to work programme. We do return to work for non work injuries as well.

Its not the employee that's the barrier its ACC.

For work related injuries I still get pinged for time off until the employee returns to full duties.

And worst of all are the doctors who ACC still insists on paying for "Here, have another five days off work"

We won't take a person back unless they have clearance from a doctor to do light duties.

(Actually I can now think of one person. I'm still waiting for a my challenge of the claim to be decided by ACC. This person, and family were serial ACC sitters. Needless to say he was fired)

These public service departments are there to provide a service to the public. I think many would struggle to articulate just what that service is nowadays.

My conversations with Worksafe have been cordial enough. But I don't think any real value has been added.

We have a few fully deaf people. We don't think of them any differently from anyone else.

Everyone has to have at least basic communication skills. So our deaf people are able to lip read.

From there verbal communication has to be clear and simple - no different from everyone else since for many English is a second language.

About the only accommodation we have made is to ensure there is a buddy who will alert the deaf when our fire alarms go off.

For most procedures we have simple instructions with pictures - helps reduce need for verbal language. Every one uses these.

We also use I-Sign for interpretation services from time to time. This might be for large staff meetings when more complex information is being communicated. Or for Performance Management meetings (yes - we treat all staff the same and if a deaf person doesn't perform to expectation they will be managed). This is a free service - the deaf person just needs to be registered.

Don't over complicate things. Deaf people arent handicapped. They just have communication challenges like lots of other people.

I'm gloomy because so many things seem to be politicised nowadays. A bit of rational fact based safety discussion would help raise my spirits.

Just another consideration, smoking cigarettes is seen as an addiction. To a lesser extent vaping probably is as well.

Addictions are a toss between a physical and/or mental illness/disease.

The Human Rights Act prevents employers discriminating against people with a disability. Which includes physical or psychiatric illnesses.

There for the same, or similar facilities should be provided to smokers that are provided to non smokers.

We have a covered exterior space (3 sides) with seating and an extractor fan

Well done that man!

Shame Worksafe couldn't get the job done. But its Friday afternoon and I'm not going to wind myself up.

That's why its important to properly assess the risk and put in appropriate proportionate controls.

If you just blanket the place with PPE, and something goes wrong with a person not wearing PPE it will be a bigger enforcement issue.

I would just add that talking about gloves at the induction is too late.

Given its obviously an employment issue it needs to be raised through the recruitment process. Probably starting at the job ad which should include "Wearing Safety Gloves Is A requirement of this Job"

You don't want to be wasting your time, and then employing someone only to find at induction they don't want to wear gloves.

A belt and braces approach is to also include it in the Employment Agreement. "Gloves are to be warn at all times....." kind of thing. (I'm not a fan of safety going into employment agreements - but expectations do need to be clear. Perhaps in the job description.

Ok. Heres a bit more of a technical explanation.

The Land Transport Act defines a road as "blah blah blah "a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not;"

So at a logical level this is any place over which a vehicle can travel and is driven by a person. Its why a road can also include a "beach"

So it makes sense that if someone can drive a forklift around a work yard it would be a road. Especially if a person can gain access (by right or not) to that place.

However we have to remember the Land Transport Act is a macro Act - it covers New Zeland roads.

But what about at a local level? Where we actually have our business?

Well here we have the Local Government Act. And this Act makes specific provision for "private roads"

A Private road is "any roadway, place, or arcade laid out or formed within a district on private land". The key element here is "private land"

Which begs the question what is "private land". How do you delineate it from public land and therefore public roads.

For us, we have taken a belt and braces approach and essentially said coming through our open gates makes it a public road. It really just makes life simple for us if a Forklift Operator has to go out on to the open road for any reason. Basically we say if you are operating outside the building we want an F Endorsement. Or put another way, if you don't leave the building on a forklift you don't need an F endorsement.

However. If Worksafe visits and they decide to get all bolshy, I'd argue that actually from the place that demarks our open gate is the spot where public road ceases and a private road begins. And I'd pull out our land survey map to prove that.

And then I would argue that my forklift, while it is on my private land and is not required to be registered and I don't need to show a registration plate. And since it doesn't need to be registered is doesn't need to have a Warrant of Fitness.

And to cap it all off, if I go back to the Land Transport Act A person must be licensed to drive on a road and if they want to drive a fork lift on a road they must have an F Endorsement. But since my yard is a "private road" (because it is a roadway on private land) and not a "road" my forklift operator does not need an F endorsement.

So sorry for the long explanation. Its a good argument for why we shouldn't focus on what the law says - we should focus on the right thing to keep our people safe. And frankly having an F Endorsement or an "OSH Certificate" achieves neither.

And I also reckon it is a crying same Worksafe have not updated their forklift resources for donkeys years. Best I say no more than that.