I agree with E Baxter. Working at a school currently, there has been a lot of uncertainty, scare mongering and just plain misinformation being spread about.
Vaccinations are a good start to providing protection to our students. It is only one of a range of protections available.
It will be difficult to manage those who are not fully vaccinated by 1 January 2022 and clear direction from government on how this is going to work will be needed. It is all well saying those not fully vaccinated must have weekly testing. It is quite another trying to implement that in any sustainable manner.
Will schools be able to do instant testing with instant results? Will staff be required to go to a testing station every week and wait until they get a negative test which may be a couple of day?
What legal stance to schools have to refuse to permit staff on site without producing a negative test?
What about the employment issue - do they get paid for the days they cannot get on site because they are waiting for results?
More questions than answers have been provided by the Government to date.
We can't wait for government to tell us how to answer these questions - schools need to start figuring out how to answer and manage these themselves.
I'm currently working through this minefield now so if you want help please reach out - happy to assist.

I believe we have to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act o top of the MoH Acts which states we must provide safe and healthy workplaces. I understand human rights of people not wanting to be vaccinated but their right does not override the right of someone who is vaccinated not wanting to work alongside someone who is not.
This is going to be a long and complicated process as one's individual human rights cannot negatively impact another's and then there are all the employment related arguments as well.
If a person refuses to be vaccinated that is their right. It is also the right of other workers not to work alongside that person which means companies need to have strategies in place to manage these situations if they arise. Out right sacking is not an option unless you are in one of the MoH mandatory vaccination groups.
If you cannot get your work groups to work together then you need to find a way of carrying out work separately. Providing alternative groups or alternative types of work is one way companies can manage this minefield should it eventuate.

Hi Michael. First thing I would do would sit both down together over a coffee and let them explain the implications of each others decision and how that might affect them and there family. The person adamant they wont be vaccinated or wear a mask may have very valid reasons. Both parties should be given the opportunity to talk calmly and openly about their fears and concerns.
If they are still at an impasse I would recommend swapping worker one with another worker who has been vaccinated and will wear a mask. Worker two can be assigned to someone else who doesn't have the same health risk concerns as worker one.
In this day and age worker two needs to understand that he might have no option but to comply at least with mask wearing if this virus continues on its destructive path as it seems it is.

I have still seen some of these around. If companies are still using them I would challenge them to put up proactive measures instead. Measures like how many corrective actions have been closed out on time and effectively. What percentage of completed audits they have against their requirement? How many improvement opportunities have been identified? How many improvement opportunities have been implemented? These also have the benefit of being uplifting to employees. They see the good they are doing and are more inclined to report more opportunities where as the higher the hours go the less reporting occurs as no-one wants to be responsible for resetting the clock to zero.

Don't forget mobile phones have GPS capability and if your organisation cannot afford other more expensive options this is an alternative.
Having a set of rules around checking in with remote teams, having good driver training, accommodation that allows late check in and check out are all sound options.
In companies I have worked with in the past high kilometre drivers all had to go through defensive driving courses to teach them how to avoid accidents and collisions which, to my mind, is gold for these people. Provides them with the "how to get out of trouble" options when they hit things like black ice or flooded roads and other bad drivers.

Hi all. There is no legislative requirement for a company to pay the 20% non ACC funded cost. However I feel there is a moral obligation to do this. The employee was working in good faith and got injured doing so. Had they not been at work they would not have been injured. Morally I feel a company should reimburse the 20% cost if they do not offer discounted medical insurance. If the company has negotiated with an insurance company like Southern Cross or NIB to provide discounted medical insurance then individuals should claim the 20% balance from that as the company has already made provision for them not to be out of pocket.

We can agree to disagree :) Legislation requires a process to assess and control risks. This is what the risk matrix helps with. Until some other way is developed keeping them simple is the best option

I don't think doing nothing is a better option when faced with risks in business.
I also disagree that using a risk matrix has a detrimental affect. It helps guide people to understanding the implications of risk and what outcomes might happen if they do nothing.
If they come up with different scores it doesn't matter. The benefit is they are working through a thought process and coming out the end with something tangible they can understand.
Do they get it right all the time? No. That's one of the things we are for - to help them understand the process and get better at it. It's no use saying its rubbish and not having a different way of assessing and controlling risks. We need to either continue coaching people in how to do it with robustness or develop something else they can use. Doing nothing is not an option.

Risk matrix may not be perfect but they channel individuals to think about what might happen and take steps accordingly. Will they get it right every time? Probably not. It is however a good starting point for the work team to discuss and agree on the controls they should implement to protect themselves and everyone around them.
I haven't come across anything else that would work any better. Would be interested to see if there is anything others have come across

If there is a risk of potential explosion or ignition sources, then yes you should ban them. All petroleum plants will not allow phones on site due to the risk. Paint plants have areas where static would cause explosion. The reason service stations 'ban' mobile phone use on forecourts is that, static from clothing can cause fumes to ignite - you don't need a mobile phone for that to happen but using one can create the necessary electrical charge to ignite any fumes. I have witnessed this on a forecourt and, believe me, you don't want to be anywhere near when it happens.

I agree with your comments Sarah. Instead of having a two palm moment what about sharing your concerns with the Broadcasting Council and raising both instances as being against the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and ask for the ads to be removed?

I'm reading with some bemusement that we still refer to NZ's health and safety governance as being in its infancy. The first Act came into being in 1992 - we are now in 2021. We, as professionals/practitioners need to stop enabling businesses to continually play that card. Before the first Act we have the Factories Act which also set out standards and requirements.
We need to be more proactive in this space and stop waiting for government to tell us what we need.
We need to be setting standards for good health and safety practices and people who deliver the information and services to businesses.
I prefer the term professional to practitioner as the latter is a term used in the health field but I don't see it as a show stopper or even worth worrying about.
We need to take charge and set standards that are aligned with ISO 45001 with all businesses and work hard with the owners and leaders to help them understand that good health and safety practice is good business sense.

Steve you are confusing a fire with an unplanned attack. I think you will find the supermarkets have plenty of exits for people to use in case of a fire.

We need to take a step back here people. Supermarkets control their risks. They cannot reasonably have foreseen a deranged person entering their shop wanting to stab people. As yet it is unknown why this event happened. Once that has been established the Supermarkets can look at the evidence and review their existing controls to see what else they can do to prevent harm to their staff and patrons. The reason removable arms were removed and replaced with trolleys is because people jumped over the arms and ran off without paying for their supplies. There needs to be a balanced approach to stopping theft and maintaining security and safety with the ALARP test being applied.

Let's take emotion out of the picture and focus on a risk based approach. Companies will need to determine the risk of exposure to COVID-19, what controls they already have in place, and if those controls are effective to avoid potential contact with the virus. If so, then vaccination should remain voluntary. If however, as in the case of Immigration and quarantine staff, the risk is elevated to a more than likely chance of contact and therefore mandatory immunisation or proof makes sense. People still have the choice. If they choose not to have it they need to work in areas where exposure is limited or negligible. If governments impose a requirement as entry into their countries of proof of immunisation, then the choice is - get immunised or you can't travel. If there are work requirements under those circumstances, then it becomes an employment issue where the employee fails to follow a fair and reasonable instruction. The company then has the right to reassign the employee to another position or terminate their employment if it is a key part of the role. Any employer should be having these conversations with their workforce now so nothing becomes a surprise and ends up in Employment Court. The old adage - Consult - Communicate - Consult. You can never do enough of this.

Jumping in a bit late on this. Pre-qualification costs our company in excess of $30k per annum just in fees to various pre-qualification systems. We are asked to pre-qualify to at least 8 different systems. even though we have independent externally audited safety systems to international standards. The time it takes to complete these would be about a 40 hour week for one employee if we did them all at once. Does it make us any safer? Not really. Does it give our clients any level of comfort that we can manage safety well? It should at least prove we have a system. The proof is whether that system is fully implemented on our clients sites. How many of the companies signed up to these pre-qualification programs actually verifies whether or not those systems are implemented and working well on their sites? That would be much more valuable to both parties.
CHASNZ is trying to align some of these pre-qualification systems into a database so that if you are qualified against one, you automatically qualify to all. Needless to say they are not getting the uptake necessary to implement this widely, and yes, there is a fee involved as well.
Industry needs to push back on all these systems. If we get behind CHASNZ and support their initiative we all will benefit from having a similar pre-qualification process without having to spend copious amounts of wasted time answering the same questions over and over.

I don't think many companies would be able to force the point by making vaccinations mandatory if the Government is not prepared to make it mandatory.
I feel this is will need to be treated like the flu vaccinations - strongly encourage and support people to get vaccinated but you can't, as yet, penalise them for not being vaccinated. Some countries are introducing a rule that if you cannot prove you have been vaccinated you will not be allowed to enter. This may force some companies hands, where their people are required to travel internationally when this is available - long way off yet.

Try some fun activities - maybe a problem your company has can be turned into a fun team activity to get engagement

You might like to remind him this is legislated in the Health and Safety at Work Act and ask him to confirm in writing he is willing to breach the legislation. I'm sure he will change his mind quite quickly

We need to focus on fatigue issues around work rather than focusing on hours worked. There is employment legislation which gives direction (albeit loose) to cover hours of work before breaks are required.
We should be focusing on the type of work being carried out, the environment the work is in and the hours worked up until now as it all contributes to the risk of fatigue.

I find encouraging people to make sure any travel and set up time is included in their work day and should be noted on their H&S documentation is a good way of opening peoples eyes to fatigue issues.
As H&S professionals we have the opportunity of encouraging people to make the most of their breaks between shifts to rest, relax and recharge.

Human Resources should be engaged in any conversation around shift and break periods so there is a joined up conversation.