'you could walk down Lambton Quay at lunchtime and the pubs used to be chocker full of workers'. Yep, you could go to any contractor, transport site in the country and there would be the after work beersies. That's one of the reasons the company implemented it so early. Nothing like an 'impaired' truck driver being loaded by an 'impaired' loader driver ;)

"I would be interested in how you get away with random testing of all staff " - Our policies are loose enough and our teams responsibile enough, to see the benefit of it. It's also in their contracts that anyone can be tested at any time for any reason (I'm paraphrasing).

"I assume they can't all be working in a safety sensitive work area" - Sorry, but you're assumption is incorrect. Aside from the fact that our guys and girls work under the High Hazards unit, they are also operating multiple items of fixed and mobile plant in a variety of conditions. All failures on our site have the potential to be catastrophic.

It's compared to PPE because it won't stop the damage if something goes wrong (a hard hat is not particularly helpful against a 50T boulder, a collision between vehicles is damaging whether drivers are impaired or not). However the potential for both (PPE and testing) to be used to prevent the event happening is what counts.

Agreed - our 'random testing' is a nuclear threat - but if the threat of getting caught is what it takes for a team member to not have that final beer/bourbon/toke on a Sunday, so they are fit for work on Monday morning and able to stop the loader before it hits the pedestrian, who cares what anyone thinks of it?

I could go on about other forms of impairment, but the OP was about D&A testing so I've stuck with that.

(there endeth today's blog post - sorry)

:)

We have zero tolerence for D & A for all staff and random testing for these and have done for the last 30 years. Ironically our zero-tolerence stand was laughed at by our legal team at the time - lol.

The difference with our random testing is that the van comes on any site randomly and all operations staff on site at the time are tested. Only one person ever knows when this will happen. It's like wearing PPE - a last chance control, rather than a sole prevention method.

We only do ops staff because they are the most exposed to critical risks and do not have the physical buffer to protect others from impaired decision-making that our administrative decision makers do.

Other than that, on the whole, potential D & A influence is treated no differently to fatigue, emotional distress, illness or anything else which impairs the ability of staff to make decisions and undertake their work safely. It is evidenced, then dealt with. That said, we are lucky that we have tight crews who look out for each other and managers who also have the respect and trust of their teams, which makes life a whole lot easier.

Quick diary entries and whiteboard messages are also very handy when needed :)

The biggest benefit was that it took the fear away when approaching someone carrying out a task that looked unsafe but the viewer didn't have the level of skill to be sure and didn't want to look foolish.

That would be so helpful! Approaching others is such a huge hurdle even when you know your stuff, it's almost impossible when you don't know what good (or bad) looks like :)
(Am totally stealing this adding this idea to the toolkit)

Don't know if this helps, but it's about connecting information with people and tasks right?

if you think of the crew as learners and then work out how they like to learn, what they like to learn about and how to make the risk management process relevant to them (and not a completely separate subject/planet), the rest will come.

We started with notebooks a few years ago which have a basic matrix in them, but although they are still used occasionally, we still have a few boxfuls of unused ones in a cupboard somewhere. We also have the risk management process and matrix on a couple of A3 sheets around the sites. But in all honesty, although great as a tool for describing a process, they've been almost useless as a way of preventing incidents.

We've found moving to 'everyday risk management' far more useful - it works much the same way as 'everyday leadership'.

There is very little formal risk management 'training', but it happens very often and in a variety of ways. Some of it is scheduled but most is unscheduled and all is with a consistant message "What could happen?".

It might be asking someone a question about the job they are doing as I (or a manager) pass them, getting the crew together to do a quick scenario, talking through one thing properly at a toolbox meeting or checking an isolation process, etc so the team are constantly 'doing' risk management.

Ironically, if you asked most of the team "what is the risk management process?" or "did you do a Take 5" they wouldn't be able to tell you using the 'right' words, and if you asked them how much risk management training they'd had they probably also shrug and say "none lately".

But if you asked them what the dangers were in the job they do, they would not hesitate to tell you everything that could go wrong and what they do about it so it doesn't go wrong.

As I said, don't know if it helps or if I'm off-base with what you were after, but that has been our experience. Oh and only the formal training is documented ;)

:)

One thing to add on HSMS software.

Any software is basically a collation tool for information. The key is to make sure the information is purposeful.

The information you get out will equal the information you put in.This means you need to be very clear about what you expect it to do and how it will help in the big picture.

From there you can work it back to the inputs you need to get that outcome.

A lot of systems also have functions that you wont use, or involve so much data-entry they are just too inefficient to use, and sometimes you will still need to supplement the useful modules with the good old excel spread sheets. But trial trial trial... until you find one that suits your needs and helps you make your work environment a better place.

:)

There was nothing that we didn't like about it as a system, but it wasn't fit for purpose for our operation when compared with some of the other options. I've sent a PM with a couple of specifics :)

I used to get annoyed at the cost of standards, especially when businesses are supposed to use them as the 'standard' for their operations but then I looked at it from a practical view.

If I have a query about say, how to guard a piece of plant, is it easier and more productive to;
a) Google specific guarding - in which case 9/10 times a WorkSafe Fact sheet, ACOP or guideline will appear and I can get on with the job, or
b) Ring the relevant WorkSafe inspector and ask them for advice, or
c) Read through and try to interpret the set of approximately 22 standards relating to machine guarding and then find out that there was an update somewhere along the line that I missed...

As is often discussed on here: paper is no use if it can't be used purposefully.

:)

Just another one to add to the list;

We moved from Mango to Safety Manager Pro (found at bware.co.nz) and after trialling Peoplesafe and Vault.

:)

Could a focus on documenting who was present at a toolbox meeting be regarded as "safety clutter"?

Yep. And in a perfect world we wouldn't need it. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect, we are all a work in progress and you do need to have that evidence so all duty holders can say, 'we tried our best' and have some sort of evidence to back that claim up.

Yeah... pretty irrefutable as evidence they were there. The tricky part is evidencing whether they participated or understood, but it does take a bit of heat off the managers. :)

We have a system where a representative of the group (chosen at random but who was at the meeting) signs the minutes as being a true and accurate record of what was covered and people in attendance. It is then counter-signed by the person who took the meeting.

If it's a toolbox meeting with a PD session tacked onto the end of it then there will also usually be a photo of the group which has come in handy. :)

What industry are you in? I only ask because you've listed Mines Rescue and from what I've seen over the last three years of 'transition' the extractives industry is really starting to get this training thing right.

Yes it helps that all our certified quarry managers have to have annual CPD (by law), but also organisations such as WorkSafe, MinEx, the IoQ, AQA and corporate sponsors have taken the lead and organised the days, so much of the training is not only free but also really, really well planned and enjoyable.

Now that the teams have been to a few training days they can see the real value in them. Our company also requires those who attend training sessions to briefly share what they learned to the team at the next toolbox meeting and reports are done for the board.

This lifts the level of conversation at all duty holder level. -> greater engagement -> less resistance to training -> etc