Yes there is - and I clarified this in my reply, but did miss to mention that there will also be actions which don't actually minimise the risk an appreciable extent (especially when considered agajnst the cost/effort required or opportunity cost of other actions). If you are at the point if diminishing returns then you will have minimised the risk so far as reasonably practicable, i.e. done all you can to minimise the risk.There is no end to doing "all we can". — Andrew
This is exactly what I meant though. Companies taking the bare minimum statutory requirement (or minimum ACoP guidance) and calling it a day because they have decided it is now an acceptable risk.This is the whole problem with certification - eg "OSH Forklift Licenses". People think they only have to prove their competence once every few years - when it should be assessed/monitored much more regularly. Despite NZ Land transport thinking you only ever need to be assessed once and you are good to go virtually forever from that point on. — Andrew
To expand on that - Give much more attention to any credible likelihood of death (or serious injuries) from exposure to a hazard associated with your business (or undertaking)Give much more attention to any credible likelihood of death from exposure to a hazard (an eruption - yes; an elevator - no) — robert parton
Going right back into the purpose of the act is "to provide for a balanced framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces".The Act says the controls-test is reducing risk to "as low as reasonably practicable". — PaulReyneke
I personally hate the use of "acceptable risk", or at least how it is generally used in business. The main reason that I hate it is that those that are deciding on what is considered an "acceptable risk" are not normally the ones that are exposed to that "acceptable risk" - e.g. it is the company directors / boards / CEOs / MDs / etc. and that decision is usually one of "we have done enough" rather than "we have done all we can".↪Aaron Marshall I like the idea of "acceptable risk" and your distinciton between hazard maangement and risk management. — Andrew
Most (if not all) PAPR supply air via a fan and not a positive displacement pump. When the fan is not operating air can easily bypass it and still be drawn through the filters and into the mask.A PAPR has air provided to the wearer via a mechanically filtered pump or an external air supply, so how when these items are switched off, can the wearer inhale air either when fit-testing or when ensuring an airtight face seal. — KeithH
A question here. How can a tight fitting respirator based on PAPR become a negative pressure respirator and have an adequate face seal for a person with a beard? — KeithH
I think it was a bit of a trick question - the actual answer is a PAPR can never become a negative pressure respirator, as it was not designed as a negative pressure respirator. So not matter how much a PAPR kind of looks like a negative pressure respirator, it should never be considered a negative pressure respirator and if it has stopped operating as a PAPR it should be removed from use and repaired/discarded.It will not have an adequate seal.. Tight fitting respirators require a seal to work. So no beards. Refer to the CDC document below, that stipulates tight fitting PAPR respirators require fit testing. If you have a beard on a tight fitting powered air purifying respirator. (PAPR) you are not expected to pass a fit test. — Stuart Keer-Keer
I think the key detail that is getting confused here is that the CleanSpace RPE "resembles" a close/tight fitting negative pressure RPE.We have recently come across Clean space masks which are powered masks that resemble the fittings on the close fitting powered respirators. — Stuart Keer-Keer
It is good to hear that you have had good uptake on the allowance, and that barriers to participating seem to be low. Have you had / ask for feedback from those that have not decided to participate? (just out of interest in why they wouldn't).Our staff asked for an allowance, several figures were mentioned, and after some research we agreed on $400. The uptake has been good, no red tape or hoops to jump through. — Stuart Oakey
It's hard to argue the point because there is an element of truth that "well at the bare minimum they are better of with this allowance in place than without it", however it goes back to the question - who has the right to dictate what an individual spend their money on? Unless you are more genuine with the reasoning behind it, as you said your company gets the benefit of healthier workers (e.g. more productive / less "waste" / etc.) - again not denying that the workers also get benefit, but that's not really the sole purpose if we really get down into it.agree but we already give discretionary leave, flexible working conditions where roles allow, wellness days and the organization is moving towards the living wage. Staff get lots of benefits and giving them tokens to contribute towards their health means they actually spend that money on their health which has benefits for them and us. It might be this week they can spend that money they would have spent on a GP visit to pay for extra living costs. — Jaylene Barwick
I was referring to this older 2020 article in Stuff referencing a survey done by Finder (first somewhat recent source that came up). A more recent Newshub article this year refers to a survey that found 39% of NZ'ers could not cover a $5000 unexpected cost within a week without going into debt, and of the 1/4 of NZ'ers that do not current save any of their income nearly half is because the are living paycheck to paycheck.Id be somewhat cautious about where you are getting your data from. — Andrew
Not every worker with kids, it is means tested. And what was the point of even bringing this up?And lets not forget the unseen Working For Families which tops up every workers pay if they have kids. — Andrew
Have you asked why so many are taking leave without pay? When I see stats like that I am curious as to why, instead of chalking it up to employees who just don't want to turn up for work.You may be surprised with just how much Leave without Pay our people take. — Andrew
Yes those employees got the benefit of the health insurance being in place, but would it be fair to say the main benefit of that insurance cover is to minimise the risk to the company of employees taking extended leave due to injuries/medical issues covered by the policy (i.e. save on costs of overtime/temp cover, retraining for other roles, recruitment costs, etc.).But we fully subsidize the insurance and there are quite a number of employees who get significant benefit form it. — Andrew
Companies choice what package options are included — Jaylene Barwick
They can spend on things that improve their wellbeing e.g. gym memberships, sportswear/equipment, medical/health expenses etc. — Ange White
Are these examples of what Andrew was referring to asWellness extends to house insulation, sportswear, chiropractors etc. Equipment for hunting allows clothing and hiking/camping equipment but not firearms. — Alex
an employer moving into an employees private life. — Andrew
With over a third of NZ'er living pay check to pay check I wonder how much employee wellbeing would be improve by just giving them the $500 extra to spend on unexpected costs or just the day-to-day expenses they face rather than dictating how they should spend their money.If you have $500 to spend on employees I'd recommend subsidizing health insurance. — Andrew
Has the possibility for some employees to be "missing out" on using their benefit because they can't afford to bridge the gap between the purchase and when they are reimbursed been considered?Employee claims the benefit via an expense claim (so they make the purchase, keep receipt and claim the expense back). — Ange White
...ask people what it is about their work that leaves them feeling unwell (physically or mentally) and then work with them to experiment on making changes to work to address their concerns? — Peter Bateman
I would have to assume they have asked for what they expected they could get, rather than what they really want/need to improve their wellbeing. $400 a year (which most workers likely won't actually take up due to the effort and hoops to jump through to get it) is minuscule when compare to the surplus value of their labour that is shared around to those whose only effective contribution is "having an excess of money" rather than those workers actually adding value to the company. However I would also assume that no self-preserving board / C-suite would support an initiative that would be really detrimental to the shareholders, and so the token gesture of wellbeing allowances will continue.Our people asked for the allowance, which our leadership team support. — Stuart Oakey
This could lead to some unintended consequences - while most workplaces could probably do with additional workers to improve safety (less stress, less fatigue, etc.), a good number of workers I talked to rely on the overtime pay just to get by (or at least live a little bit more comfortably). Take that overtime away and I would expect those in this situation's overall stress to actually go up and well-being to go down. Essentially we have a large amount of our workforce that basically have to run themselves into the ground just to (ironically) survive.It might mean hiring more people to spread the workload, for example. — Peter Bateman
They are only NZ$108.90 and $123.30 respectively for the AS/NZS versions from Standards NZ (AS/NZS ISO 45001:2018 & AS/NZS ISO 19011:2019/)With all due respect, these are only $NZ300 each to purchase and download from here. The AS/NZS standards are slightly more expensive. — KeithH
But what is accurate in this endevour (and conversation) anyway - either source you choose from your figures is essentially just a thumb-suck, a somewhat arbitrary monitory value that (a sample of) society has placed on the cost it is willing to pay to prevent 1 additional death. Which is literally comparing the cost of saving lives with the opportunity cost of using that money for any other purposes.If people want to go down the path of valuing a human life they ought to at least try to do it accurately. — Andrew
I agree with this, but it will never really happen until we actually value all people equally irrespective of their skills or what benifits they can provide compared to others. If we continue to place a "market value" on each person, then there will always be justification to look after some people more than others. Whereas if we value that each person is contributing to society the best they can, it's hard to justify looking after one person more than another.Maybe we should look after people simply because it is the right thing to do. — Andrew
H&S Professional: I recommend we spend $XYZ to reduce the risk of fatality or life altering injuries' to our workers because it is less than the calculated "QALY x remaining life expectancy" value of our workforce.You could crudely use the QALY x remaining life expectancy for a more accurate figure. — Andrew
I can't find any other sources stating that they have increased their VoSL to $12.5M - and from the section in the report it is referring to the 2021 VoSL which was still $4.88M (Social cost of road crashes and injuries June 2021 update.And at the same time, it increased an esoteric number called the VoSL – the Value of a Statistical Life – from $4.88m to a somewhat breathtaking $12.5m. That's an even bigger increase. — Steve H
That sentence is a bit ambiguous and the $12.5M might actually be referring to the value of life years (VoLY) which (from my understanding) is more of a health based value, which makes sense as the section it is referrenced in is regarding the costs of damage due to emissions (i.e. it is factoring in both fatalities and decreases in health outcomes into the cost).Damage costs in Table 9 have been calculated based on the 2021 value of life years (VoLY) derived from the 2021 value of statistical life (VoSL) of $12,500,000 (NZ$)... — NZTA's Monitised benefits and costs manual V1.6
Shouldn't we only want to identify recent use? I.e. detect impairment?When I was a NZDDA (TDDA now) tester, it was well known in our industry that saliva testing was the least reliable and only identified recent use. — Mandy Gudgeon
And also what they remember from the HSR1 training, if they can:Why not ask the rep what additional training they would like to do? — Robb