Not that we want to, but ours get kept for ever. That's because it all gets scanned / electronically recorded against an employee. And once done I can't be bothered deleting. One day some Privacy Act botherer will knock on my door and remind me I can only keep personal information for as long as I have a purpose for holding it.

In terms of actual time frames you probably have:
1 year - to cover the time an employee has to lodge an ACC claim.
3 months if a person wants to bring a safety related personal grievance.
7 years if it relates to a taxable payment to an employe.
12 months for the purposes of the Worksafe prosecution limitation period
2 years in relation to a private prosecution
5 years, if as a PCBU you have a notifiable event

Hmm. An interesting approach. I would be interested in how you get away with random testing of all staff - I assume they can't all be working in a safety sensitive work area. Safety sensitive, of course being an area where the consequences of an accident could be "catastrophic" (not my word - the word of the current legal authority)

I didnt even know they did random testing 30 years ago's - gee - you could walk down Lambton Quay at lunchtime and the pubs used to be chocker full of workers.

We don't have a "zero tolerance", ours is an intolerance. But perhaps that is semantics. But what it means is we don't discriminate on those grounds and we see it more as a health issue - providing assistance to people where their drug and alcohol use (and other things) impacts on our work environment. We've even gone as far as helping one of our alcoholics return to work with an Ankle Bracelet for being done DIC. And I've just hired a dealer not long released from prison.

I am no sure if the analogy with PPE is helpful. We don't do random issuing of PPE not do we do random checks of PPE. Random Testing is not a prevention / control - as mentioned above it is the "nuclear threat" type of deterrent. Its a really worry that you would potentially have impaired workers who aren't picked up before the Test Van arrives.

Your last sentence, in the context of Random testing makes no sense at all to me - but perhaps that is simply end of year fatigue on my part.

It should be a given that people make mistakes. It might be from poor decisions or some other reason.

That's why we create solutions that prevent those mistakes turning into a major problem.

Strikes me that imposing something random is a very poor way of dealing with this issue.

(If you think that being caught DIC and losing your licence and therefore losing your job isn't a very good deterrent then how is a random check possibly going to work,. It turns out to be simply a numbers game where drivers are playing the odds. "Safety - The New Workplace Lotto". Just what we need))

In answer to question one. Because they are proving an inability to learn . And their inability to learn and change is causing problems. Broadly speaking I find "attitude" the hardest thing to change but changing skill is relatively easy - to a point. And at some point we are not a rest home for non-learners.

Question two. Yes. Again, broadly it is the inability to take instruction and apply learning. Sometimes its attitude ("I will do it my way") sometimes its retarded memory ("Oh I forgot that"), Sometimes its lack of care or respect ("i'll just do the easiest thing"). We will give a person a few chances. But not limitless.

Question three. Generally very few if they are new to the task (thus needing the SOP to train and develop). They may have different experience from different environments and these insights may add value. Or they may not.

Question four. Again broadly speaking deviation from the task procedure isn't tolerated. Tasks are timed. So a deviation that takes longer is no good. If the deviation is shorter then it will be looked at, procedure changed and time changed. The task will have a quality element to it. If the deviation affects the quality then the deviation can't be accommodated. There is also waste consideration (Time / Material) so again a negative deviation can't be accomodated.

Task hazards aren't always present. If you focus on continuous improvement and keep looking for the 1%er's you can often uncover a safer way of doing something. Sometimes you can get a 10%er, which is usually an engineering solution that requires less labour or lower skill and inherently less risk

We have a few SOPs ("Standard" not "Safe" since following the procedure will work towards safety).. Maybe a dozen or so. Probably should have a few more - but high risk areas are covered off.

One SOP goes on one piece of paper (can be double sided if need be) but it is one sheet. No More!

English is a second language to most operators so language ("english") is kept simple.

The SOP's are also essentially the same as the work processes are broadly the same. So they just get wee work area specific tweaks (eg Safety Glasses To be Worn" v s "Welding Helmet Must be worn).

The complex routine tasks are taught by rote / memory. There might be a specific photo of something complex eg a specific wiring loom, that sits outside the SOP. QA checks are done along the way - this prevents a mistake going too far down stream.

When things go wrong, as they will,(if they don't you aren't trying hard enough) the operator gets a mistake for free. A couple of the same mistake they get some attention. Repeating the same mistake they are down the road.

All good. We are each entitled to our own views.

But you have me a bit worried know especially as I am travelling the roads this summer.

Seems to me there are untrustworthy drivers out there operating heavy transport. And these drivers might be driving so impaired by drugs or alcohol they might crash into me.

And the only thing between me and a safe trip is a random drug test turning up a positive result.

I'm now thinking what is protecting me from that drunk truck driver who dodged the random test.

I live a life continually bewildered and perplexed. Seems I'm not the only one.

Within PayGlobal we have a whole suite of safety stuff including keeping track of competencies, issued PPE, HSNO register and training records. Along with risk management and incident data recording

Random drug testing is not reasonable. It is a disturbing invasion of privacy and failure of trust.

We dont do Random Bank Account Testing, or Random Relationship Checks or Random Are the Kids on the Right Tracks Checks or Random Prescribed Medicine Checks (or random Not Taking Meds Checks) or Random Psyche Checks.

Keep your sticky beaks out and focus on proper risk management

For a start - of course they shouldn't be free. Nothing in this world is free.

And really price isn't the issue. $94.50 bucks for a Standard that promises so much: "provides a robust and effective set of processes for improving work safety in global supply chains. Designed to help organisations of all sizes and industries, this standard is expected to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses around the world."

And if I'm spending $250,000 on a machine then $2,213 to get a "series provides designers, manufacturers, suppliers, employers and users of machinery with guidelines to help reduce the risks of working with, or near, machinery. This set contains each standard as an individual document." doesn't seem like much.

Cost isn't the issue. Its the risk if you get it wrong and having a Standard in your possession.

I'm a fan of "Less is Best".

Much better to get hanged by Worksafe for not knowing (and arguing cost of Standard is not proportional to risks identified and managed at the time - particularly when compared with Worksafes own information) rather than having all that information on site and at hand and not following each clause / sub clause.

Dealing with "mandatory": first" This is a sign of capitulation where all other controls have failed and you are left with a cop out PPE / Rule type outcome. That's bad enough when there is real risk. But no excuse for it where there isn't. The things you reference are govt mandatory things and they tend to be based on the lowest dumbest common denominator. And not entirely helpful = like it is mandatory not to use a cell phone in a car. But you can have your handbag dog wandering around free as you like, or you can puff on a ciggy if you so please. The issue isn't using a cell phone - its distraction.
So "mandatory" should only be used in limited, specific and high risk areas. (Its also a term much loved by control freaks and lazy buggers)

Next re your worksafe visitor. I would not expect the inspector to be so concerned about the wearing of the safety glasses. What he should be looking at is the risk and if you have appropriate controls. If that risk extends, say 2 meters to where another person stands then the Inspector would expect to see appropriate controls. What he would be looking for is something flying off WorkStation A, flying at head height to workstation B (or walkway) with such velocity to cause eye damage to person in Work Area B. If there is no such risk then no need for eyeglasses let alone safety glasses. But if you do have a risk of such a projectile - then you have a risk to soft facial tissue, bone and teeth. So what controls have you put in place for that.? None by the sound of it. Perhaps screening is a better solution.

In our environment we have found, rarely, "projectiles" leave a machine at approx waist height, fly horizontally (not upwards) for a short period of time before gravity takes control and said object falls some 1m from the feet of the operator. So operator has to wear safety glasses (for the 1:1,000,000* chance something flies upwards) but people near by dont (we don't manage to 1:10,000,000 chance). We also figure a facial skin tear is remote and easily fixable with a plaster - but the same can't be said for eyes - hence no facial guard. We also know that glasses arent 100% ideal - something could fly vertically up behind the lens but at some point we have to take control of our imaginations.

*Chance is simply an example number - not the real one!

Heres a nice free picture taken from the Compliance Document for
New Zealand Building Code Clause D1 Access Routes – Second Edition 2011 version - which looks like the latest.

In our workshops we have mandatory* steel caps - mainly because workers are all over the place and can cut themselves or have heavy stuff fall on them virtually anywhere (despite our engineering controls and traffic management). Frankly though the risk does not apply across the whole area - but we all see the sense of the impracticality of swapping on / off boots in /out different areas. (Visitors need enclosed footwear - that's a function of distance away from risk)

Can't think why we would make safety glasses mandatory across the whole area though. Safety glasses are only to be worn in very localised areas where there is a specific risk - like a bit of swarf coming off a drill press.

Perhaps you have not clearly articulated the risk to your Managers. Or indeed is there any real realistic risk at all. I can't imagine how a failure in an engineering control would let something fly from a machine to a walkway at head height.

If you have a genuine risk of something flying through the air and through a glass in a prescription lens of a person on a walkway I would have thought you would need more than safety glasses.

* I'm not a big fan of "mandatory"

I don't have the Standard (jeez - who can afford those!!!!!!) but as I recall its 20mm round or you can go flat but the external dimension needs to be equivalent to min. 20mm

Min. 20mm round bar.

Drink to thirst is a principle. You cannot set up hard and fast rules because every person is different, as is their working environments. When you say 'older people" it might be helpful if you referenced it as those broadly over the age of 65 - where it is a problem for those who live independently and living in a "heat wave" where their sensation can't be relied upon to signal the need to drink. Its a big problem in retirement villages and rest homes. Not one, I would have thought for your average forklift driver.

But back on topic "Other authors have found that the thirst sensation does not begin until about 1–2% of body weight or 2% of total body water has been lost."

As another broad principle you can estimate fluid loss through sweat at around 1.0 - 1.5 litre an hour under quite some exertion. Heres an exercise you can try at home. Jump on the scales and go for a walk or a run for an hour. Jump back on the scales and see how much weight you have lost. Most of it will be through sweat with some of it being loss of stored energy and respiration. (My last tested personal benchmark is 1.2kg an hour running in 25 degrees at 80+% max heart rate. Drink to thirst kicks in at about 50 minutes. C'mon forum members share your results!). Once you have tried this, then try it on your average forklift operator or driver. My money is on a result that won't come close to this weight loss.

Humour me - and lets say they loose 1/2 kg an hour in tough, but not extreme temperature conditions. That gives them 2 hours work with no detrimental effects. (In Christchurch here we do get such conditions - rarely in summer when the hot nor wester is coming through. Today its a balmy 14 degrees with gentle southery)

You want my citation - bare with me. "In this regard, there is disagreement in the literature about acceptable sweat rates for industrial workers. While sweat rates of 1.5–2.5 l/h have been shown over short periods (with peaks of 3 l/h), acceptable figures for a working shift are generally considered to be lower. ISO 793313 and Belding and Hatch advocate a limit of 1.04 and 1.0 l/h respectively for acclimatised persons, although ISO 988615 curiously states that “There is no limit applicable concerning the maximum sweat rate: the values ... adopted in ISO 7933 ... must be considered not as maximum values but rather as minimal values that can be exceeded by most subjects in good physical conditions”. Nunneley reports that humans can sweat indefinitely at rates of 1.5–2.0 l/h, while McArdle and colleagues recommended a limit of 4.5 l over four hours."

Lets agree to disagree and settle on an acceptable sweat rate of 1 l/h. Now that's going to be for an acclimatised worker - which is what our forklift operators will be (the exceptional one off hot days aside). That gives them an acceptable work period of 2 hours. I call that "quite some time" and we haven't even touched on "detrimental effects" at this point.

This paper here is interesting reading: https://oem.bmj.com/content/60/2/90#ref-21 . To save some effort it does involve research involving extreme working conditions (>28 degrees) and extreme work (underground miners). Your average Forklift Operator isn't going to come close to the condition extremes these miners work under.

Boils down to: under usual work conditions a cuppa at smoko will do the trick.

We operate a high trust model. Only drug policy is: "get caught selling drugs on site you're fired". No pre-employment, no random, no post incident (dont have any) no dogs. No judgements made on what people do in their private life. No angst on "safety sensitive" areas - just some areas are more dangerous than other. Business focus is on productive competence.

Hmmm not entirely sure of the factual basis of your article. For a start I think there might be some confusion between % of body mass lost and % of water lost. And no mention of sodium lost that needs replacing.

We can agree that dehydration can cause a gradual loss of important functions. But whether your average Forklift Operator gets to that point would be moot.

As for the outrageous assertion that dehydrated women perform better than men after drinking water. For a start they werent dehydrated - they had simply not drunk since the previous evening. "I feel a bit thirsty" does not equal dehydrated. And there were 25 women vs 9 men. The actual conclusion was "More specifically, water consumption appeared to have a corrective effect on the response times for thirsty individuals, bringing their speed of responding up to the level of non-thirsty individuals. "

"Drink to Thirst" is a pretty simple principle. As employers we should do what we can to ensure this can be done. But no two people are the same. And I know The Bottel Sippers won't appreciate it - but honestly. You can go quite some time without water before any detrimental effects associated with dehydration kick in.

I would firstly like to see Worksafe figures reconcile with ACC work claim fatalities
2014 = 111
2015 = 104
2016 = 103
2017 = 119
2018 = 85

(as for police stats - they arent interested. Its all about their funding and promotion. Which is why people get ticketed in a supermarket carpark for not wearing a seatbelt. A verbal warning would likely have had an equal preventative impact. As for teh 4km speed tolerance which for some reason doesnt exist over holidays. Whiffs of revenue gathering waft in the air)

If its a statement of fact (as evidenced by the 31 page Induction and dodgy sign off) how can a comment be disparaging.