Hi all
12 months ago when I joined the company we had a real problem with speeding over 100kph across our fleet of approx 150 vehicles comprising 50% heavy vehicles and 50% utilities.
I started a weekly report of drivers exceeding the limit to their managers. They discussed the incident with their workers and gave a letter of expectation to comply with the speed limits.
Initially we didn't notice a lot of change but as the discussions became more frequent and the expectation that we obey the open road limits and if that means we take a little longer to complete the job so be it.
There were multiple repeat offenders 12 months ago now it is rare to see the same driver two weeks in a row, also the high speeds have dropped considerably.
I doubt we will ever achieve complete compliance but the dynamic has changed for the better.
We review speeding below 100kph by complaint or incident report due to the possible inaccuracy of crowd sourced speed limits

Rather than focus on rules to enforce behavior we are trying to change the belief system that says it is OK to speed by showing the consequences of an accident at toolbox meetings, sharing personal stories from the team and attempting to show that it is OK to take as long as it takes to drive somewhere, we also had the CVIU police unit attend a toolbox which was very successful

Thanks for your feedback - seems to be a continuing challenge balancing business need to manage RTW with the workers rights to determine (with their GP) how much capacity they have for work.
In our experience ACC have little interest in short term absences and even after 3 months we have struggled to get ACC assistance with RTW

Thanks for the feedback - really appreciate the share. All the best Keith

Hi, Mike, interesting you say the LTI stats are largely meaningless I agree that basing an opinion on the safety performance of a business on LTI stats alone is unreasonable.
No one want to hurt their workers but sometimes it happens and for whatever reason the worker wants to stay home for a day or two to recover. Many of these injuries could be managed as restricted duties - but playing devil's advocate - is it really such a big deal if we lose a couple of days.
Unfortunately, yes if you need to report to a tier on contractor.

Thanks for the feedback it sounds like we aren't the only organisation that has issues dealing with ACC and "work" injuries
We have had a second opinion on one of our long term ACC recipients and while they disagree with the diagnosis it still sits with the individual to agree to return to work as they continue to get signed off by their own GP. Our HR team are reluctant to engage now as medical opinion trumps any performance issues apparently. Next step will probably be frustration of contract.

Our challenge is to encourage our teams through toolbox and training sessions on the value of an RTW process and hopefully change the culture for some of our people. (most are willing and engaged in our injury management procedures)
cheers

Hi Don
There are a number of free resources on youtube, cheers

Hi Rebecca
I have found it to be a tricky balancing act between no smoking legislation and our workers desire to light up or vape. Interestingly I have recently moved from an industry where smoking was a minority to one where most workers seem to smoke or vape. From a safety and wellbeing perspective, we encourage and provide info to quit but realise many have no desire to do so.
I am for providing an area that's out of the weather that doesn't impact non-smokers as the time lost walking off site and impact on morale can be worse than enabling the habit - BTW I am a nonsmoker

As someone with both the F endorsement and operator's certificate I can tell you that neither of these give you competence merely a basic grounding in the rules and regulations and a brief drive of a forklift. on my last course there was a new operator who had never used a forklift yet managed to pass the assessment. My last role was at a distribution centre with more than 60 MHE working on site. None of the operators were required to have an F endorsement by the company as they maintained that controlled entry to the site negated this requirement even though we had truck and trailer units driving through the yard all day long.