Just want to highlight the experience part - and that it is in asbestos surveying/assesment in the same industry as you - I once saw a survey that claimed a set of brake disc that tested positive for asbestos was low risk because it was bonded into the brake material and in good condition...Worksafe provides very good guidance on what to look for in a surveyor. If they dont have P402 or IP402 and many years of experience (with examples of work) then there is a chance they dont have the required skill set to do the work. — Stuart Keer-Keer
Agree in principle we can move up the hierarchy when opportunities arise to improve, but "all we can do right now" sounds a bit sketchy! — Simon Lawrence
I agree with this completely - and my comment regarding "what is the best we can done" was meant in this context; i.e. "what is the best we can do with the resources we have available (and also without sacrificing something else more in the process). But I do think the process should start "at the top" (for want of a better description) - is there anything we can reasonably do to eliminate this risk? No... ok, lets move down to any reasonably available substitutions...Some would argue "why stop there?" My answer is that interpretation of "Reasonably practicable", if applied properly, gets you to a perfectly good place. — Simon Lawrence
My suggestion is if we want managers to get to the optimum level in the hierarchy, instead of exhortations to be better just for the sake of it (they see right through that), we give them the whole story. And the whole story also says "Here's where you can stop, at least for now". — Simon Lawrence
30 Management of risks
(1) A duty imposed on a person by or under this Act requires the person—
(a) to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable; and
(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks so far as is reasonably practicable. — Health and Safety at Work Act
6 Hierarchy of control measures
(1) This regulation applies if it is not reasonably practicable for a PCBU to eliminate risks to health and safety in accordance with section 30(1)(a) of the Act.
(2) A PCBU must, to minimise risks to health and safety, implement control measures in accordance with this regulation.
(3) The PCBU must minimise risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable, by taking 1 or more of the following actions that is the most appropriate and effective taking into account the nature of the risk:
(a) substituting (wholly or partly) the hazard giving rise to the risk with something that gives rise to a lesser risk:
(b) isolating the hazard giving rise to the risk to prevent any person coming into contact with it:
(c) implementing engineering controls.
(4) If a risk then remains, the PCBU must minimise the remaining risk, so far as is reasonably practicable, by implementing administrative controls.
(5) If a risk then remains, the PCBU must minimise the remaining risk by ensuring the provision and use of suitable personal protective equipment. — HSWA General Risk, etc. Regs
But the other ways are seen to take a lot more personal effort than just randomly asking someone to pee in a cup... and generally don't have as much visibility of effectiveness to senior management / boards as pinging a "deviant" druggie.There are other ways to identify deviance prone people in an organisation other than D&A testing that will not adversely affect people we want to keep and have the same effect (and it's probably cheaper). — Jon Harper-Slade
It makes me think that there is a good chance that those in leadership positions that are making the decisions to use random dug testing are themselves the "yes" conformist type people and are not necessarily innovators, risk takers or even thinkers - the type of people business needs to flourish.The unintended consequences is that the "good" people who do get hired can potentially just be "yes" conformist type people. Who are not necessarily innovators, risk takers or even thinkers - the type of people business needs to flourish. — Andrew
Well there are apparently a few apps already available to stop you from making a fool of yourself by drunk-texting... I'm sure something could be adapted!What we need is the 2021 version of "walking a straight line test" — Andrew
Agree with that - the results of the referdum / any law change will potentially cause some headaches for any companies with D&A testing process which are based on a "well it's illegal so you shouldn't be doing it" approach rather than actually considering if there is impairment or not.I'd be much more interested in "Impairment Testing" — Andrew
And besides being under the influence of drugs/alcohol should never be considered the root cause of an incident anyway.So why do we test for these when we know it is highly unlikely it will be a root cause? — Marie Fleming
While no case have been reported so far in NZ, there are now 5 confirmed cases in Australia - so it is not unlikely to be a potential issue here as well.There is nothing specific for Coronavirus as it isn't an issue for NZ at the moment. The seasonal flu will have a bigger impact so it would be more important to prepare for this. — Chris Anderson