My well being gets well sorted after a few pints at the local pub. But I don't see my boss paying for that.

I see this as just another situation of an employer moving into an employees private life. Employees should be responsible for their own personal, non work related well being.

That said we pay for both health insurance and EAP. Because sometimes stuff happens in life and its going to directly impact work. So best we get people back on the road to recovery as barrier free and quickly as possible.

And if I could be bothered claiming I'd get back the cost of one sports event entry fee a year on the insurance.

If you have $500 to spend on employees I'd recommend subsidizing health insurance.

No. Not since the police riot squad had to come and settle things down.

If people want to go down the path of valuing a human life they ought to at least try to do it accurately.

And at work we already value humans - based on their skills and experience which is reflected in their rate of pay.

So I guess where the risk of death is the same, we should invest more in our most highly paid employees and less on the least paid employees.

Its like security - you will invest more in securing your most valuable assets and your least valuable will possible get zero security.

Maybe we should look after people simply because it is the right thing to do.

Chris. I agree with your colleague.

Your $5m is based on the total life expectancy of a person. I reckon you ought to be refining your approach to talk about a healthy 20 year old worker relative to an obese 65 year old worker.

You could crudely use the QALY x remaining life expectancy for a more accurate figure.

@steve H. Min of transport is publishing dis/mis information.

In NZ, as at 2023 the current official (ie Government)
- Value of a Statistical Life (VoSL) is $5,184,615 per person. Up from $4,423,800
- average length of life is 81.8 years
- the QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) based on VoSL is $63,381 a year. This is based on a person in perfect health. If a person is Low Health Status then this knocks 50% of so would be $31,690

There is also, from a safety perspective
- Social Cost of Loss of a Human life = $5,783,615

As far as Min of Transport is concerned they should be referencing
- Social Cost of Fatal Road Accident = $6,847,071 per incident
- Social Cost of a serious road crash = $693,579 per incident
- Social cost of a minor road accident = $39,261 per incident

So the issue Is the source. Do you prefer to use Denne T (I have no idea who that is or why Min Of Transport would choose an alternative source. Tin foil Hat time. Or do you prefer NZ govt source. I'll go for the latter - as it is the established numbers for statistical modeling.

More fun health numbers
Walking is worth $6 per person, push-biking is worth $3 and E-biking is worth $1. So if you are in a CBD you should really be ditching the E bikes and encouraging people to walk.

And if you are Adult doing 300+ minutes moderate to vigorous physical activity per week then that's worth $2,870 per year

Health care system cost of a fatal car crash $18,635. But a serious crash is $21,916

An Intensive Care Unit is valued at $8,014 per day vs an emergency room at $503 per day

Oh how I wish we would focus on impairment.

And not what people do in their private lives.

Well, As I don't like to use safety as a make work scheme I decided to do nothing. Nothing whatsoever. Not a moment was spent in preparation. Anywhere. By anyone.

I turned on the usual charm which doesn't extend so far as tea and biscuits.

We had a chat and a wander and I Ieft him to stroll where ever he wanted and talk to whoever he liked..

And the result? Nothing.

No prohibition Notices. No improvement notices, no suggested improvements. No tips or hints or ideas. Nada.

Job done!

Another make work scheme which is part of the endless thirst for useless unreliable data.

Ideal if you want to stick a veneer of "caring" over your business, but really serves no useful purpose in the end.

I presume you employ adults. In which case the are big enough to make their own decisions.

Creating guidelines that don't impact responsible people is just a create work scheme.

And miscreants should be dealt with on an individual basis depending on circumstances.

(We are a place of work, not a bar. So we don't have drinks on site)

Couple of quick couple of points to summarise above
- if an employee has a disability (manky feet) an employer has an obligation to to take reasonable steps to accommodate that disability. So finding alternative boots is the right thing to do
- if wearing safety boots was a requirement of the job and the person can no longer wear safety boots they can no longer meet their side of the employment agreement. Redeployment elsewhere would be preferable to an otherwise termination of employment.

(Oh - and so often I have seen the token attempt to "manage" safety which is a blanket requirement to wear safety boots irrespective on any risk assessment and subsequent determination that boots are the only option left. Remembering PPE is bottom of the cliff stuff)

I guess so. But at the end of the year you get a bit tired and leave yourself questioning your knowledge when confronted with authoritarian public servants.

So that's 2 hours of my life I won't get back.

I was right.

Always useful to have the applicable sections of the Act on hand when they try to bluff their way through.

ACC now off to pay my person.

Its not a separate claim. We all agree it is the same injury

I'm not worried about the injury @Jane. I'm happy enough to accept it is related to the first injury.

Its the issue of me paying for the time off.

Snap. I had the misfortune of viewing the photos my employee sent me of his feet.

Patently obvious foot care was a class he missed at school. And his wages weren't enough to pay for clippers.

I won't post the photo's - suffice to say the images will stay with me for life.

My mistake. I had assumed the logical first solution of trying to get boots that work had already been tried.

I've just had a GP sign an employee off for two weeks due to "bruising" caused by the boots.

Employee sent me photos of his Tinea that he accepts was fixed by cream - which is what he was after from the GP.

That one was kicked right back to ACC

So I am a bit toey when it comes to medical claims related to boots. And GP's falsely (fraudulently) advocating for their patients.

Thankfully no ESG window dressing here which I consider to be one of the best "make work" schemes around.

Safety practitioners should stay well clear.

They arent fit and able to do the job. And therefore unable to mee their side of the employment agreement.

Redploy else where or terminate.

The other point I'd make is the more we bury ourselves in policies and procedures the more we are going to get tangled in them when an issue arises.

We ought not treat everyone same same. We need to be flexible and fleet enough to rise to a one off occasion and tailor make a solution for that situation - without having it apply everywhere else.

I've had one person advised they are prescribed MC.

Great. And that was about it.

Usual "impairment" requirements apply.

No change in policy (actually no policy). No busy bodying in a person private life. Still no Testing being done - not forming judgements on what people do outside work - its impairment that counts.

Done and dusted in about 60 seconds.