I respectfully disagree with the approach Dianne has suggested.
Neither worker should be put in a position to have to discuss, explain or justify with regards the others' situation or choices. This approach may be suitable in a family but not a workplace.
Secondly, I disagree with putting any onus on 'swapping out' one worker over and above the other worker.
My advice would be for the workplace to conduct a risk assessment and consult with both workers on appropriate controls.

An intelligent, empathetic and beautiful piece of writing.

I was fortunate to win a copy of the Safeguard Health & Safety Handbook. It explains legislation and references case law. I keep my copy on my desk as a reference. It helps me accurately and clearly advise directors and officers of their responsibilities. The book is collaborative effort by @Mike Cosman, @Ann Butler, @Craig Marriott, Michael Tooma and Rachael Schmidt-McCleave and I believe it is updated annually.

I tend to look at whether WorkSafe publications would appeal to the people who work in the industries I have worked in.

I am a fan of the meerkats ad from the viewpoint of teamwork and workers being empowered to take action to speak up and prevent harm. I see it as a conversation starter.

But I thought the pickle game WorkSafe came out with recently is ridiculous and a complete dumbing down of hazard identification. The pickle game appears to be more suited to children than to adults.

As pregnancy progresses, hormones to prepare the body for childbirth increases flexibility, which in turn increases the risk of manual handling injuries.
Frequent breaks and encouraging her to literally put her feet up is helpful.
Consider anti-fatigue matting and take a look to ensure her footwear is up to task i.e. supportive, stable, and shock-absorbant.
Hydration and diet are more important than ever as are the psychosocial aspects of the workplace.
Indeed, as Andrew pointed out, keeping the lines of communication open is very important.
Her midwife may be assistive in assessing any adjustments to work processes or work hours.

Hi Jane, I wear gel padded vibration resistent gloves when weed whacking on my lifestyle property. I find them comfortable. One thing to note is that PPE conformance claims cannot be made as I dont believe there is a standard. Regards, Michelle

The risk is not just of electric shock but of fire. Check your fire insurance cover as tag testing may be required for cover in the event of electrical fires.
A visual inspection cannot identify internal wear and tear which can lead to fire. This is especially a concern with multi-plugs, double-adaptors and extension cords.
Consider the cost and quality of your multi-plugs as you generally get what you pay for and their overload protection does wear out which can lead to fire.
As for double-adaptors; work places might do well to ban these altogether as they have no overload protection and rely solely on people using them wisely.
I agree with @Steven Carpinter's observations although I count myself fortunate to have worked for more than one organisation that takes electrical safety (and all aspects of H&S) very seriously with only items with current tags permitted to be in use. This rule comes into its own in work environments with appliances coming and going, for example contractors and engineers using their own gear.
If you work in an organisation that is not yet managing electrical safety holistically, starting with a test n tag regime is a great way to get a finger on the pulse and feedback to senior management. Testing can flag a wide range of issues such as the prevalence of extension cords, multi-plugs, double-adaptors, ground pins, modified guards, leaking microwaves, strained cables under height-adjustable desks and other horrors.
I have a preference for engaging a third party tester as opposed to getting a staff member trained. I have known trained staff members to work well in the accommodation industry with many hairdriers, toasters and irons to check. However in a more complex industrial or workshop setting, a third party tester is invaluable.
Back to @Jim at SAMs' question. Some tips to reduce the bill might be to switch to battery powered hand-tools where possible and invest in hard-wiring and adequate wall sockets to reduce use of extension cords and multiplugs. Finally, from memory, I believe the testing frequency for office equipment such as computers and screens is two-yearly. Perhaps this is an area in which you can make at least some savings.

@SafetylawyerNZ

it reinforces the negative perceptions too many people have about health and safety

I agree totally. It's a perception that managing safety is a waste of time and resource as though there is a default safety-net called "common-sense".

Using the words "common-sense" to define a government or regulatory approach is quite objectionable - a cop-out and an open door to shift blame onto workers and may be used to imply workers are idiots (i.e. failed the 'Darwin-test') when they get hurt.

Regarding the examples given in the article, having managed a high-turnover cafe, burns including steam burns are definitely in the top four common injuries in a kitchen environment. These often do not result in LTI's but they are particularly painful!

I am not convinced either that work on single-story buildings can always be safely done without scaff-holding or similar work platform. I wonder whether in making these statements, Simon has made any consideration for injury stats for falls from just a few metres or the basic need for risk assessment.

@Jane Milne

ongoing staff absenteeism due to sickness and/or schools closing

Good point - I hadn't thought of the impact of parents needing to stay at home for their children if schools are shut.

Deepwater Horizon - Mark Wahlberg is always good to watch. The irony in this film is that they had just won an award for good H&S (there are lots of cute clues in the movie such as safe coffee cups) but they had no training and procedures to identify and respond to the scenario they were faced with.

Article I found on ewpa.org.nz

Hello Sheri, thanks for sharing this article. Personally the topic of ethics in H&S is front of mind for me on an almost daily basis. One thing I often say to myself is that getting paid to work in improving health and safety is a privilege and it comes with an ethical requirement for me to do my best, be forever learning, questioning, growing professionally and doing what it takes to be effective.

Working in health and safety can be very lonely and it is not for the faint-hearted! When reading this article, a few things stood out for me and I started to be thankful for my personality type and ability to communicate directly what needs to be said.

I think some of the reasons for compromise and unethical behaviours given in the article are a bit superficial and I would hope they do not apply to the majority of those working in H&S.

From the article in italics...

“We want to fit in, to feel part of the team, and therefore to progress in our careers, so it is difficult to disagree with our bosses or with our peers when they appear to be in agreement about a questionable course of action."

It's great working in a positive team environment and being able to leverage off this to achieve good safety outcomes. But in the absence of a positive team environment or an environment that does not necessarily value H&S as it should, I think that many H&S people need to make peace with not making friends at work or feeling somewhat on the outside.

“We don’t want to appear to be disloyal to colleagues whom we otherwise like and respect."

I don't see a conflict in this necessarily. I personally find that it is my loyalty to my colleagues - especially those on the manufacturing coal-face - that motivates me to be very real about health and safety i.e. to be uncompromising at times in matters of health and safety.

“We want our team and/or our organisations to thrive."

Exactly - again I don't see this as a point of conflict. We know that any organisation that performs well in the health and safety space will perform better in other areas as well.

“We often feel as if ethical breaches are the only way to be competitive."

This could be the old-think that poor safety standards saves time and money. I should hope that H&S professionals are above and beyond this mindset and know the real value that good standards bring.

“We may be embarrassed or feel vulnerable to admit mistakes or problems.”
Thanks be to new mindsets that learning by error and failing-safe are good things.

I think there's a lot more to be said on this topic than appears in this article. Keen to hear more views.

A really good step forward for any workplace is providing adjustable height desks or similar and then teaching staff how to adjust them properly. I injured my back this year and can testify that without my sit/stand desk, I would not have been able to return to work as quickly as I did.
Marion Edwin, HASANZ registered ergonomist from Optimise LtdOptimise Ltd puts on courses to teach people how to manage workstation risks. She uses the ACC guidelines, applies a H&S risk management approach and makes it practical. Best thing is you come away with knowing how to support the workplace with overall healthy desk set-ups and work practices and you learn when it is time to engage an ergonomist or occupational provider for further assistance. I found this course provides great value as we can now manage most of our requirements inhouse, and in a proactive and preventative way.
After doing this course my eyes were opened as to how many products are on the market which claim to be ergonomic but actually only cater to a few people's needs. One of the biggest barriers is procurement and the fact that a lot of manufacturers appear to be catering to the average (tall) European. Sadly, I have not managed to find a sit/stand desk with a full height range to cater for both short and tall people. What complicates this is that in a modern open-plan office setting, desks tend to be integrated rather than standalone.
On a side note - In the past ACC had an online resource which included stretching posters for different work environments/industries, offices being one of them. Sadly, last I looked this resource has been taken off-line. Perhaps other Safeguard users still have these posters saved somewhere and can share them via the forum?

Hi Lucille,
Both businesses should communicate, consult, coordinate and cooperate regarding shared concerns and how to manage shared risks.
From what you have described, the smaller business occupies part of the building. So some shared concerns are likely to be fire safety, emergency evacuation procedure, security, housekeeping of shared areas, parking etc.
If these are topics being discussed in your H&S meetings, sure - why not invite them along as a visitor. But generally, if your meetings are to discuss the risks to the larger business which do not effect the smaller business, there's no benefit to having them attend.
Another idea would be to have someone appointed to manage the relationship with the smaller business and be a contact person for them. And perhaps meeting regularly every month or two, might be a proactive way of managing the relationship and making sure there is opportunity to communicate.

• Under NZ law, a final written warning issued on the basis of a 1.55% percent shortfall in production and the ensuing dismissal for a 'confrontation' would unlikely be accepted as lawful by the ERA.
• Continuing operations with a gas leak to the point workers are hospitalised, I expect would attract a Worksafe investigation and follow up.
• Failing to effectively maintain forklifts by qualified personnel and failing to provide basic safety training contributing to a fatality would attract a prosecution.

Overall, I'd like to believe - correct me if I am wrong - that if a large employer were to conduct business this way in NZ, it would attract much more than media attention. I am thinking intervention by Worksafe, Dept of Labour and perhaps even union involvement.

Not at all implying that NZ is leading the way or above reproach. But we have a range of worker protections in place which don't feature in this article.

As robots become more and more a part of our workplaces, we need more than ever before an ethical approach to job design to ensure we as humans can continue to function as humans and our need for some variety of movement, toilet breaks, freedom to 'think' and 'breathe' are preserved.

What strikes me as sadly ironic is the name of the performance management system "ADAPT".
Is this code for workers needing to adapt to working with robot, like robots?

“Before robots, it was still tough, but it was manageable,” he said. Afterward, “we were in a fight that we just can’t win.”

Unfortunately pink is not officially day-rated hi vis.

Christmas has come early! Thank you Tania.

Elf wears hi vis to give him superpowers and make him indestructible.
Elf mops floor and puts out safety signage for others to trip over before they slip n slide.
Elf decides not to wear earmuffs because he is already deaf.
Elf delivers toolbox talk in unknown elf-language.
Elf takes nap in spill kit.
Elf decides 'elimination' of the hazard is the best control [use your imagination with this one].

This is not merely the introduction of new technology, this is automation to the point of robotising the worker... Humans competing with robots in a race of survival of the fittest. It's clear who will lose.
Call me old-school or off-topic but I am for a post-consumerism revolution to go back to buying only what we need.
Try buying local or NZ made when possible. Here workers benefit from legislative protections.
Be prepared to pay a fair price; support ethical companies who pass this fair price on to their workers as fair wages and conditions.
If the price paid for an item would not cover cost of goods and fair wages, then someone probably suffered to make the product available to you.
Support suppliers and manufacturers who create sustainable jobs. Yes I said "create".

@Jono Johnson
We do just that - our workers wear orange but we supply visitors and visiting contractors with yellow hi-vis vests with "VISITOR" printed in bold on the back. This generally works well and gives our forklift operators in particular a heads-up. We've just had to instruct our office staff not to wear the visitor's vests as this just confuses the issue.