Hopefully I haven't misunderstood the brief, but these two videos I have used in the past, the first to explain what a risk is vs a hazard and the second is one to tug on heart strings...i.e., what the potential impact on those we leave behind can be if we get it wrong at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GwVTdsnN1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffC9FfMYpW4

Thank you all for your feedback and links to articles. It is most helpful. I too agree that our focus should be on impairment, and I find it interesting that when we often talk about impairment, how do we test for somebody impaired by factors such as lack of sleep, illness (headaches etc) that could impact on work performance etc.

Hi Stephen,
Thinking for Random but yes as you described initially screening for saliva only.

Yes agree. I believe somewhere along the line people have confused a Safety Management System with a SSSP. Often I see it used a company A wants to ensure company B has safety processes, and people think the SSSP supplies this.

Personally, I think it should have information relevant to the Emergency procedures on site, i.e how an emergency is broadcast and what actions required on broadcast, site specific critical hazards/hazardous areas and Key personnel on site for help

I agree @Steffan St Clair-Newman, and that is my problem...it feels that our standard risk management processes have gone out the window with this. When is it OK to accept a control without analysing the risk, esp. when it is introducing PPE which is the lowest form of control.

Correct @Gary Clarkson, we are finding the same, which seems to be a common finding in some research conducted overseas https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/ . I also find people are getting grumpier in the work day.

I am very much of the thought, that controls (esp. PPE) must be for a meaningful reason, the Hierarchy of control should be applied (i.e. don't default to PPE), and that foreseeable risks should be prioritised and managed.

I am trying to question, what is the most foreseeable harm likely to eventuate from in our level 2 workplace...COVID or risks associated with wearing a mask?

Thanks guys. Yup we are working through the fit issue etc. What my point I was trying to make is, how many businesses have quickly implemented COVID controls without following their usual risk management processes to understand how COVID risks are prioritised against their other risks when it comes to determining which is the more pressing risk to manage and if they have reassessed their current risk controls after implementing COVID controls to ensure that the COVID controls don't negatively impact on their other risk controls or introduce new risks.

Hi Stuart, another link that may help is https://legalvision.co.nz/employment/pcbu/ written by
by Matthew Bartlett. He explains it rather simply by stating " Despite the reference to ‘person’, a PCBU can either be a person or an organisation. In terms of health and safety law, in most cases, the PCBU will be an organisation (usually, a company or other business entity)."

WorkSafe has stated the following in regards to a H&S per not being an officer
"Who is not an officer?
People who provide health and safety or other advice, or make recommendations to senior leadership are not officers solely on this basis.

Some examples of people who are not officers (unless they also fall into one of the officer categories described above) include:

health and safety managers
team leaders, line managers and supervisors
workplace health and safety officers and advisors"

https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/mythbusting-and-faqs/officer-faqs/

I think the other thing to add or consider, building on Joe's point, is has the company got the off the shelf 'vanilla' product, or customised it to their business wants/needs? I say this, as most I have been involved in tend to be customised, which then negatively impacts on the user experience... kind of similar to the backyard mechanics taking a Honda Civic and modifying it with the hope of making it a Ferrari...it seldomly meets the users expectations and now doesn't function as the manufacturer intended it to.

Have we not maybe overthought this?
The fire extinguisher in a car is not intended to extinguish a well involved vehicle fire, but more so to extinguish a small fire if safe to do so.
I think it is almost like saying lets not have first aid kits because they are not effective for heart surgery...when we all know, that is not the intent of them.

To answer the original question, like others have mentioned/alluded to, you need to first answer why you have them in your vehicles? If not required by any group/client or not identified as part of a risk control, then they may not be required. If you do require them, then like any equipment I would say you need to ensure staff understand how to use them as well as the risks, limitations and expectations for using them.

Great topic @Peter Bateman. I was fortunate to have two guys who have influenced me.
Ken Clarke is a guy who had a chat to me and answered all my questions about entering the field of H&S. He then continued to mentor me, encourage me and have words of wisdom when I was having a down day while I studied and started in new roles. To this day, he still does check in. Great all round bloke with a passion for H&S that is infectious supported by his depth of knowledge.

Bruce McAlpine was my first H&S Manager who continued to support me in study also, and when I had questions about why we do this or that, he would generally say, have a look and see if you can find a better way. Generally I would come to conclusion and understanding why the current way was being done. He encouraged me to not always accept the status quo as the right way for now, but to continually review what we do and how we do to seek continuous improvements.

Two top blokes.

In a previous place of work I used the risk matrix with only the highest rated consequence factor to correspond to investigation level, i.e. Top 2 severities warranted a full formal investigation, the bottom two effectively an incident report review with the person/s involved to identify lessons learned and opportunities for improvements and the middle one (with a cross over to the second top) had a PEEPO and 5 whys type investigation. Investigation output should reflect actual or potential consequence. For this business, I didn't just focus on injury consequence but also environmental, reputational, property damage and regulatory (as the regulator had the ability to impact on operational capability).
Worked well, especially for instances if people say "why was I investigated but so and so wasn't...removes a potential for bias.

Following on from this; how are we all keeping our registers? i.e. excel sheets, software etc and what are people finding useful (i.e. easily accessible and meaningful)

Great share. Many thanks.

A way I have found works with some is to seek their help. Often these people have lots of experiences and knowledge that just cant be purchased off a shop shelf and by asking for their input/help and to use/view them as them as mentors rather than dinosaurs sometimes engages/inspires them to participate in H&S more. The key is that it needs to be meaningful and practical. Finding what makes people 'tick' or their reasoning can be helpful also, e.g who picks up your role to supports your whanau/community/sports club etc. if you can't?

This is one topic I have had an interest in lately and wonder if the term SSSP has lost it's way. In my mind, when businesses are asked to submit a SSSP, the requester is actually wanting to see evidence that a business has a Safety Management System (SMS) that promotes work and processes that aligns with good practice and expectations from a business level for HSE management, i.e. risk management, contractor management, incident management processes etc.

A SSSP on the other hand to me should be exactly that, a Site Specific Document outlining plans, requirements and processes specific to that site, e.g. evacuation procedures, specific risk controls, site emergency response plans etc or as SiteSafe says, "an agreement between businesses working on a specific site that determines how health and safety will be managed."

With that in mind, I struggle to see why businesses are asked to submit a SSSP for a site they are visiting to conduct work on, when it should be designed in collaboration (e.g. construction site) or be present from the site PCBU and relayed/discussed with new works to see if changes occur, e.g. responsibilities.

A whiteboard can be effective, or even in this busy society an online forum, whether it be an online meeting or an online document that people can access and contribute to in real time could be an option.

My advice would be to cut the fluff and keep it specific and relevant so it is a usable document; "Say what you do, then do what you say".

My 2c worth.

Good points raised by Tony. With your reply in mind, what are your views on Employer vs worker responsibility and accountability for 'fitness for work. It is accepted that employers must ensure people are trained for work, but how far does it go to ensure people are physically fit for work, i.e. supporting/supplying exercise/stretching programs for physical work deemed at risk of MSD?

Yup Thanks Marion. The mirror tip was told to me in the late 90's and much has evolved. I look at driving like work station ergonomics, which includes all the factors you have mentioned. My work to date has information and advice we can provide on all the factors you mention except for the 'driver set up' Considering there are so many variables the seat alone can be set to, information on a 'good' would be great. Thanks for the link Professor Crawford

With more and more work forces having driving as part of their risk profile, I have been interested to see there is limited information on what 'good' looks like for driving ergonomics. Do you have any information or where we can find such information? I remember in a past life being told sit up straight, and set your rear view mirror, this way you will know you are slouching when driving as you wont see out your mirror correctly if you are slouching.

Well done and thank you for making this forum possible.

It is great and important that we can network and share ideas/problems/concerns for each other.