What do we think of ACC fining Affco millions for shooting

[JimO]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work related

[Drum]

It's bollocks. What more can you say?
There's an election coming up.

[dino3310]

thats our fucked up system for ya:oi-grr:

[idb]

ACC is a 'no fault' system.
It wasn't the guy's fault that he was mixed up with a bad crowd and prone to bad habits...but in this day and age everything that happens must be someone's fault...so there you are!

[Lil_Byte]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work related

Where did you find this - I want to find it so I really can understand how f**ked up the system is

[scumdog]

Where did you find this - I want to find it so I really can understand how f**ked up the system is

Was in Tuesdays ODT I think.

[inlinefour]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work related

Firstly, ACC are not fining the company, ACC does not have such powers to fine anyone. I actually agree with ACC expecting the company to pay up, provided that the employer has it's own work cover, it would be up to that provider to come to the party, as it clearly was in work time, even if he was ducking out when he should have not been. Where I was working, we are covered by another provider while we work. I did not see the article on the telly, nor know all the details, but I do know that if ACC can, they will decline cover. However in this instance, there might be grounds for doing so and I also know that if you challenge a decision, because of being entitled, ACC back down. However this is all about entitlement and I'm also sure that ACC would not have done this if the bloke was entitled. This is probably just another case of the media making another storm in a teacup, without providing all the facts, yet again...:mellow:

My biggest thing with ACC is that they do not cover those with medical problems. There was a few in Burwood Spinal Unit that was paralysed due to a medical probem and they recieved nothing from ACC. I would hate to be on the wrong side of that line in the sand. Thats something that makes me appreciate the ACC system, in my situation.

[Meanie]

ACC is just like every other fucked up gov department Rob from us poor hard working class to keep themselves rich.............. Fuck them i say At least a leach has its uses :angry2:

[McJim]

Er.....why don't they fine the fella that pulled the trigger? Can't find him? That's not my fuggin' problem or that of the company whose car park it happened in!

[Finn]

Er.....why don't they fine the fella that pulled the trigger?

Because he is the "real" victim here.

[JimO]

Firstly, ACC are not fining the company, ACC does not have such powers to fine anyone. I actually agree with ACC expecting the company to pay up, provided that the employer has it's own work cover, it would be up to that provider to come to the party, as it clearly was in work time, even if he was ducking out when he should have not been. Where I was working, we are covered by another provider while we work. I did not see the article on the telly, nor know all the details, but I do know that if ACC can, they will decline cover. However in this instance, there might be grounds for doing so and I also know that if you challenge a decision, because of being entitled, ACC back down. However this is all about entitlement and I'm also sure that ACC would not have done this if the bloke was entitled. This is probably just another case of the media making another storm in a teacup, without providing all the facts, yet again...:mellow:

My biggest thing with ACC is that they do not cover those with medical problems. There was a few in Burwood Spinal Unit that was paralysed due to a medical probem and they recieved nothing from ACC. I would hate to be on the wrong side of that line in the sand. Thats something that makes me appreciate the ACC system, in my situation.


i have to dissagree with you, how is it the employers fault that one of their workers was shot in a carpark when he shouldnt have been there by a criminal who also shouldnt have been there. Its not like the employee hurt himself on a dodgy machine, personal responsibilaty has to come in here the employee was also indulging in a illegal act at the time of his shooting. I have absolutly no problem with ACC paying out to anybody injured at work or in a accident, medical problems arnt a accident but should also be covered by the vast amount of taxpayer dollars that are payed into the health system.

[Finn]

AFFCO have said they won't pay. ACC can't make them so AFFCo will win - end of story.

It's funny seeing all the cracks finally emerging from an incompetent Government where idiology gets in the way of common sense.

ACC is way too top heavy. In clear cases like John, it can work fine and that's what it's paid to do. But so many pricks are on it because the Government promotes it. I guess it helps lower the unemployment figures. However, what other country advertises ACC. I mean come on you flightless birds.

[peasea]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work related

This is quite fair;

Anyone standing in a carpark should be free to wear gang regalia, smoke pot and do fuck all, it's what this nation is all about. The person with the gun has got it all wrong and I retract any (and all) posts relating to guns being pointed at losers.

AFFCO should be ashamed of itself for not providing a bullet-proof environment for all its workers, whether they be gang members or illegal immigrants. All employers should supply a bunker for a marae and a full armament for organised retalliation.

It's the kiwi way.

[inlinefour]

AFFCO have said they won't pay. ACC can't make them so AFFCo will win - end of story.

It's funny seeing all the cracks finally emerging from an incompetent Government where idiology gets in the way of common sense.

ACC is way too top heavy. In clear cases like John, it can work fine and that's what it's paid to do. But so many pricks are on it because the Government promotes it. I guess it helps lower the unemployment figures. However, what other country advertises ACC. I mean come on you flightless birds.

Although jimjim did not read my post properly and I cannot be bothered taking the time to explain it to him. Makes me wonder about the point of this thread really, as if he can't get an important point I raised on my post. How can jimjim get it right for this thread in general and if hes expecting to get the facts just from the media, he just might be expecting too much.

But hey, makes a nice change from "mod bashing". As you were people, but I think you might be basing your opinions from something not based on a factual account (I have come to expect this from these sorts of programs, guess it all boils down to ratings, even if the truth get ommitted), but more along the lines that will get an emotional response from its viewers. Which to a large extent, is pretty much whats happening on this thread. :rolleyes:

[peasea]

Firstly, ACC are not fining the company, ACC does not have such powers to fine anyone. I actually agree with ACC expecting the company to pay up, provided that the employer has it's own work cover, it would be up to that provider to come to the party, as it clearly was in work time, even if he was ducking out when he should have not been. Where I was working, we are covered by another provider while we work. I did not see the article on the telly, nor know all the details, but I do know that if ACC can, they will decline cover. However in this instance, there might be grounds for doing so and I also know that if you challenge a decision, because of being entitled, ACC back down. However this is all about entitlement and I'm also sure that ACC would not have done this if the bloke was entitled. This is probably just another case of the media making another storm in a teacup, without providing all the facts, yet again...:mellow:

My biggest thing with ACC is that they do not cover those with medical problems. There was a few in Burwood Spinal Unit that was paralysed due to a medical probem and they recieved nothing from ACC. I would hate to be on the wrong side of that line in the sand. Thats something that makes me appreciate the ACC system, in my situation.

Ya fuckin what?
he should have been working. If he'd been doing what he was being paid for he wouldn'a been shot FFS.

Show me to the gene pool please.

[kave]

As I understand it. Affco applied to be an ACC exempt employer, that means that they dont pay ACC levies, and instead are responsible for providing the same cover as would be provided by ACC. They believed it would be cheaper for them, and a good incentive to try to reduce injury rates. In this case, if Affco was paying ACC levies, the shot man would have received a shitload of money from ACC, and Affco are legally required to provide their employees the same cover as they would have got under ACC (a legal requirement for ACC exempt employers). Basically Affco thought it would be cheaper to be exempt, but this one incident may have made that not the case. They really have no right to whinge, they gambled and it didnt pay off.

[inlinefour]

Ya fuckin what?
he should have been working. If he'd been doing what he was being paid for he wouldn'a been shot FFS.

Show me to the gene pool please.

Everyone have a read please, before you get all worked up over something that looks to me like a storm in a teacup.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00260.htm

I guess the weather over NZ was not as nice as it was here today? Not eough riding and the need to gripe over something? This is very old news, but I guess some are just going off what they saw on telly? I saw this thread and did some reading, before I posted on this thread. I was surprised with what I read, but not with the reaction from some on this thread... :baby:

[Ocean1]

I'm finding it difficult to understand that anyone could consider AFFCO guilty of anything whatsoever with regards to the incident in question.

If ACC policy indicates otherwise it's simply another example of a cherry picking tax. We'll just tax those who can afford it, regardless of fairness or fact.

[peasea]

Everyone have a read please, before you get all worked up over something that looks to me like a storm in a teacup.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00260.htm

I guess the weather over NZ was not as nice as it was here today? Not eough riding and the need to gripe over something? This is very old news, but I guess some are just going off what they saw on telly? I saw this thread and did some reading, before I posted on this thread. I was surprised with what I read, but not with the reaction from some on this thread... :baby:

Right, I didn't know it was during a meal break.
Perhaps they should give gang members more meal breaks.

[inlinefour]

Right, I didn't know it was during a meal break.
Perhaps they should give gang members more meal breaks.

Maybe you don't know what your on about. Its allready been suggested in my first post and confirmed what I thought on the first post on the 2nd page of this thread. Affco provided its own employment cover and does not pay ACC any levies what so ever. In simple, once the worker is off site, ACC cover non-work related injuries, but at work ACC does not. This is a pretty simple matter to me and how he worker got injured is not the actual issue, even though many want it to be. :baby:
The only reason I brought it up is because my employer does the same thing and the only reason why I do have ACC cover, is because it happened in my own time and not at work.

[peasea]

Everyone have a read please, before you get all worked up over something that looks to me like a storm in a teacup.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00260.htm

I guess the weather over NZ was not as nice as it was here today? Not eough riding and the need to gripe over something? This is very old news, but I guess some are just going off what they saw on telly? I saw this thread and did some reading, before I posted on this thread. I was surprised with what I read, but not with the reaction from some on this thread... :baby:

Yes, need to ride. You got ESP or what?

[inlinefour]

Yes, need to ride. You got ESP or what?

This is getting boring and I guess there is no educating some? I'll let you carry on without me, have fun.

[Brian d marge]

Well that article sums it up , AND what will happen .... ACC was, and could be again a wonderful system , When I was mucking around in NZ , I heard that all it would take was a 1 cent tax increase , mind u that was 8 years ago ! . To return ACC to what it was in the beginning ,,, I was a recipient of its benefit .. ( you think insurance is good ACC was brilliant

But , the great unwashed of NZ ... DID JACK SH!T in the 80s , ( got a bit pissed over the rugby ) but did NOTHING over the real issues ,,, oh a few looneys got off there arses, and a few soon to become unemployed government workers ... did as well ...

So at the end of the day the NZ you have now is the result of , well apathy ( do I sound disgruntled ,,,too right , cause I remember a cracking little country that was an easy pleasant place to live , )

This Afco thing is the tip of the iceberg , work with chickens anyone , contracted champhlerbackter ? ( sp) ,,,ACC tried to say it wasn't a disease

Using a blunt Knife on the processing chain and you arm doesn't work anymore ,,, well that wasn't an Injury once upon a time ( have to check that ,,, but not let it stand in the way of a good Rant !!!!!!)

There are people out there, good simple hardworking folk , who DONT KNOW , all of this ...and TRUST ,

Then when sh hits the fan , they think along the lines , I have worked here for 40 years , I ll be ok ...

Nope . The mighty dollar wins , you lose

As for the Meat workers Union ... well , they are all right , older NZ males driving nice new Holdens , love a bit of rugby ... happy , Where were they , pointing out the pit falls of the new Acc regime .... No where

Dont get me wrong there are some sterling people doing good work ( and from the most unlikely backgrounds to !!!!)


Where do you start ... I ll tell you ..walk 100 m ( or more if you are in Canterbury and the guy gets fantastic travel money , so he will come to you !!!) walk to the nearest MP office and wright down a list of complaints

Better still write a letter to your MP ...its Freepost as in FREE ... takes as much time as it does to complain on KB ... ( and before any one starts I'm comfortable with what I did ,,but I am not banging my head on a brick wall for ever ,,, )

AFCO ... user pays ... So pay up .

Stephen

PS I might have had a toke or to before luch as well ,,,some of those canteen lunches......

[Toaster]

This is probably just another case of the media making another storm in a teacup, without providing all the facts, yet again...:mellow:

My biggest thing with ACC is that they do not cover those with medical problems. There was a few in Burwood Spinal Unit that was paralysed due to a medical probem and they recieved nothing from ACC. I would hate to be on the wrong side of that line in the sand. Thats something that makes me appreciate the ACC system, in my situation.

I went to a conference in Norway a while back - ACC was the envy of the rest of the world.... all they have is private insurance for everything, so you get huge premiums, lawsuits etc etc. The no fault injury scheme is very generous and people should remember to be thankful we have it.

Yes, the media always report things to their advantage and sensationalise things - truth, who needs that when it doesn't sell papers or airtime?!

Some people are stupid for believing everything they read or hear without knowing the full facts - which rarely ever come out when there is an axe to grind.

[sAsLEX]

My biggest thing with ACC is that they do not cover those with medical problems. There was a few in Burwood Spinal Unit that was paralysed due to a medical probem and they recieved nothing from ACC. I would hate to be on the wrong side of that line in the sand. Thats something that makes me appreciate the ACC system, in my situation.

Accident Care and Compensation aint it? Explains it really.


Those people you discuss should be covered under our Public Health system we pay soo much tax for.....

[Albino]

Jeez if you fullas know so much about how it all should work then why don't you go and work for ACC.

Ooops, wrong thread.

[MSTRS]

Accident Care and Compensation aint it? Explains it really.


Those people you discuss should be covered under our Public Health system we pay soo much tax for.....

Accident Compensation Commission.
Semantics say that the Affco case was no accident...

[Lias]

Personally, I say let the guy pay his own medical expenses.

He was in a gang car, consuming illegal drugs. He shouldnt get a cent of taxpayers OR his employers money.

[avgas]

I just wish the bullet killed him.
Then the car blew up and destroyed all three of them.
Not exactly going to be missed

[inlinefour]

Jeez if you fullas know so much about how it all should work then why don't you go and work for ACC.

Ooops, wrong thread.

As part of my assessment for going back to work, being a case manager for ACC has been identified as one of my possible options. However, if I did go there I'm not sure that I'd be too popular, as I work on common sense (usually), something perhaps ACC could do with a bit more at times...

[ManDownUnder]

It's clearly AFFCO's fault for:
1) Employing someone with issues
2) Allowing their production facility to be within ballistic range of an open space
3) Not providing bullet proof defences in the event of such a situation

What were they thinking?

:jerry:

[JimO]

Although jimjim did not read my post properly and I cannot be bothered taking the time to explain it to him. Makes me wonder about the point of this thread really, as if he can't get an important point I raised on my post. How can jimjim get it right for this thread in general and if hes expecting to get the facts just from the media, he just might be expecting too much.

But hey, makes a nice change from "mod bashing". As you were people, but I think you might be basing your opinions from something not based on a factual account (I have come to expect this from these sorts of programs, guess it all boils down to ratings, even if the truth get ommitted), but more along the lines that will get an emotional response from its viewers. Which to a large extent, is pretty much whats happening on this thread. :rolleyes:


i read it and understood it fine, what i dont understand is why Affco having their own workplace insurance has anything to do with some dicktard gangmember getting shot by another dictard gangmember whilst consuming illegal consumables in a carpark.....i bet they supply a smoko room for breaks if he was in there having a cup of earl gray he would still be working today

[Brian d marge]

Jeez if you fullas know so much about how it all should work then why don't you go and work for ACC.

Ooops, wrong thread.

I dont , but close family member , is medical specialist for the unions , spending her time in court trying to stop ACC shitting on the not so fortunate ,,

Stephen

Ps here in Japan I have medical insurance , works a treat .

[peasea]

i read it and understood it fine, what i dont understand is why Affco having their own workplace insurance has anything to do with some dicktard gangmember getting shot by another dictard gangmember whilst consuming illegal consumables in a carpark.....i bet they supply a smoko room for breaks if he was in there having a cup of earl gray he would still be working today

My thoughts entirely.
If he hadn't been a gang member and was just an average Joe who went out for some fresh air and got shot because of mistaken identity or whatever it would be a different matter.

[peasea]

Maybe you don't know what your on about.

Or perhaps you don't know what I'm on about. I have no intention of getting offside with you here, I was poking the Borax at gang members generally with that comment, not belittling anything you had to say. I don't think ACC, AFFCO or anyone else should shell out one penny for the dork. Let him get shot, he chose that lifestyle.

[Grahameeboy]

All I can say is "Smoking Kills".......nah need to say more

I think that ACC is better despite the obvious system flaw which prejudices those born with a disability.

It does seem unfair that a drunk gets 1st class medical cover yet disability issues are a struggle.

Quick example.

ACC - Teacher Aide - All Day
Disablity - Teacher Aide - Half a day.

Even in IL4's case he got things that I have had to fight for or pay myself. He got a mobility vehicle and I had to pay $25,000 to get one.

Now I am not saying IL4 was not an accident (and that he does not deserve compenstion from ACC), cause it was, however, a person with a disability did not in any way contribute to their disability yet they or parents have a harder job.

The reason, and a simple example, ACC provides a mobility vehicle for the injured person whether they drive it or not and Disability only pays for a mobility vehicle if the disabled person can drive it. Even in NZ 4 is still 2 young to drive and when old enough Nats still can not drive.

But despite all this, if there was no ACC this Country would have a financial issue and the implications would be more costly in general.

[idb]

I don't think it matters whether he's a gang member or not, whether he smokes dope or not...I just can't see how anybody could say that the employer is in any way culpable here.

[Clockwork]

Well I've been convinced to change my opinion by these arguments. If it comes down to a simple thing such as "employee liability" for accidents on personal time and "employer liablity" during working hours AND AFFCO then decide to save a few bucks by choosing to cover "employer liability" themselves rather than pay the levey......

I guess all you really need to establish is, which account would ACC pay the compo from if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out? If it's be the Employer Account, simply beacuse it happened on employer premises or during the hous of employment, then tough titty AFFCO, pay up!!

[idb]

Well I've been convinced to change my opinion by these arguments. If it comes down to a simple thing such as "employee liability" for accidents on personal time and "employer liablity" during working hours AND AFFCO then decide to save a few bucks by choosing to cover "employer liability" themselves rather than pay the levey......

I guess all you really need to establish is, which account would ACC pay the compo from if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out? If it's be the Employer Account, simply beacuse it happened on employer premises or during the hous of employment, then tough titty AFFCO, pay up!!

What does it matter whether AFFCO opted out or not...are you proposing to punish them for some perceived mean-spiritedness?
What if the reason they wanted to opt out is because they have commendably put so much time, money and effort into making the work environment safe for it's valued employees that the accident rate is now so low that it makes more financial sense to cover any incidents themselves?

[Scouse]

What a complete crock of shit, guy has a break to smoke a joint when he should be working, sitting in car in carpark with other retard gets shot by opposition gang member. Acc fine company because it was work relatedServes them right for being dumb and hireing gang members

[Clockwork]

Its a simple liabilty equation; if they aggreed to accept liability during hours of employment (assuming thats the basis upon which ACC choses which account is payable) it's too bad, they should have been aware of the risk when they opted out.

Look, the employee got no say at all in how his workplace cover was provided, if AFFCO hadn't been allowed to opt out, ACC whould have covered him and no one would have given it a moments thought. AFFCO try to save themselves a few bucks and suddenly the employee has no cover!! OR we, the rest of us employee levy payers, have to subsidise AFFCO's liability.... how is that fair on the employee or us?

[marty]

I'm finding it difficult to understand that anyone could consider AFFCO guilty of anything whatsoever with regards to the incident in question.

If ACC policy indicates otherwise it's simply another example of a cherry picking tax. We'll just tax those who can afford it, regardless of fairness or fact.

did you read the article at all? here's a piece of it in case it was too hard for you:

“It is clear that Affco accepted the claim as a work claim in 2003 and it is now trying to unload it onto the ACC Earners Account which all New Zealand workers directly fund from their pay packets for non-work accidents.

“The injury occurred in Affco’s carpark during a meal break and it falls square within the definition of “work related personal injury” in section 28 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.

“Affco have now made the carpark more secure and safer as it could have done prior to the accident.” “The company accepted responsibility under the ACC accredited employer arrangements which give employers the right to accept direct liability for accident costs in return for discounts.”

so affco admits liabilty 3 years ago, and now wants to change its plea? if he crashed his car in the company carpark and hurt himself or someone else, would the 'it's not a workplace injury' argument still hold?

one of the guys at my work fell asleep on the way home and crashed - my employer (also an ACC opt-out) paid for everything.

[idb]

did you read the article at all? here's a piece of it in case it was too hard for you:


“The injury occurred in Affco’s carpark during a meal break and it falls square within the definition of “work related personal injury” in section 28 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001.
“Affco have now made the carpark more secure and safer as it could have done prior to the accident.” “The company accepted responsibility under the ACC accredited employer arrangements which give employers the right to accept direct liability for accident costs in return for discounts.”

so affco admits liabilty 3 years ago, and now wants to change its plea?

The company accepted responsibility....for accident costs...
An accident under the legislation as I understand it is something that could be prevented with proper management.
The question is...does this qualify as an accident?

How far do they have to go?
If they lock all of the employees in during work hours, set up a 3 metre high chainlink fence with guard towers and keep all staff inside and away from windows ... but then someone lobs a grenade over the fence are they still liable?

[marty]

25. Accident

(1)Accident means any of the following kinds of occurrences:

[(a)a specific event or a series of events, other than a gradual process, that—

(i)involves the application of a force (including gravity), or resistance, external to the human body; or

(ii)involves the sudden movement of the body to avoid a force (including gravity), or resistance, external to the body; or

(iii)involves a twisting movement of the body:]

and this:

place of employment means any premises or place—

(a)occupied for the purposes of employment; or

(b)to which a person has access because of his or her employment;

[Clockwork]

The company accepted responsibility....for accident costs...
An accident under the legislation as I understand it is something that could be prevented with proper management.
The question is...does this qualify as an accident?

How far do they have to go?
If they lock all of the employees in during work hours, set up a 3 metre high chainlink fence with guard towers and keep all staff inside and away from windows ... but then someone lobs a grenade over the fence are they still liable?

Your entitled to ACC cover for any injury... including victim of criminal acts, for instance, getting run over by a drunk driver or even an act of terrorism, and if you're at work when the terrorist stikes, I guess the compo would come from the employer account..... unless of course they'd opted out.

[Ocean1]

did you read the article at all?

I did.

Which statement did you have trouble with?

The one where I suggested AFFCO shouldn’t be considered guilty of neglegence in the matter?

Or the one questioning the fairness of any legislation that penalises them for something they have little control over?

[idb]

Link to a Fact Sheet put out by OSH about employers responsibilities to minimise harm http://www.osh.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdfs/allpracticablesteps.pdf

So;
The phrase 'all practicable steps' is important and qualifies many of the duties
under the Act.
The phrase applies to the general duties that must be carried out by all those
in the workplace, and describes the standard of reasonable endeavour that
each person must meet when carrying out those duties...

Q: Why do I need to know about 'all practicable steps'?
A: 'All practicable steps' is a key concept in the Act. The Act places a duty on employers, employees, self-employed people, people in control of
workplaces, and principals (people who engage contractors to carry out work
for them) to take all reasonably practicable steps, in circumstances they know or ought reasonably to know about, to ensure their own safety and that of others.


Q: What are 'all practicable steps'?
A: In relation to those things you know about or ought reasonably to know
about 'All practicable steps' means those steps that it is reasonably practicable
to take.
A step is practicable if it is possible or capable of being done. 'Reasonably'
means that you don't have to do everything humanly possible; you only have to do what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the same situation.
Whether a step is reasonable takes into account:
• The nature and severity of any injury or harm that may occur;
• The degree of risk or probability of injury or harm occurring;
• How much is known about the hazard and the ways of eliminating,
isolating or minimising the hazard;
• The availability and cost of safeguards.


Q: What does 'reasonably practicable' mean?
A: A step is 'practicable' if it is possible, or capable, of being done.
'Reasonably' means that you don't have to do everything humanly possible;
you only have to do what a reasonable and prudent person would do in the
same situation. This includes taking into account the factors stated above.


Q: Can I be prosecuted for injuries caused by hazards that I didn’t know
about?
A: You are required to take steps only in respect of circumstances that you
know about or ought reasonably to know about.
This does not mean that you can turn a blind eye. People with duties under the Act are expected to have a system for actively identifying and managing
hazards at work. If you have such a system and an unforeseeable hazard
injures someone at work, then you will not be liable.
If you have no such system, however, and someone is injured because of a
hazard that you should have identified, then you may be prosecuted for
having failed to take all practicable steps to prevent that injury.


I suppose employing gang members would be a foreseeable hazard as someone pointed out earlier?
On the other hand, employees have a responsibility to take all practicable steps to ensure their own safety.

How silly does this argument have to get?

[JimO]

how about we shoot the gangsta again :argue:

[marty]

I did.

Which statement did you have trouble with?

The one where I suggested AFFCO shouldn’t be considered guilty of neglegence in the matter?

Or the one questioning the fairness of any legislation that penalises them for something they have little control over?

he was on company property. affco have now made changes to make the premises more secure, so i guess they realise that they were remiss in the first instance. they did admit liabilty in 2003.

[Ocean1]

he was on company property. affco have now made changes to make the premises more secure, so i guess they realise that they were remiss in the first instance. they did admit liabilty in 2003.

None of which I dispute. I simply ask if it's reasonable that anyone, (including a commercial enterprise) should be held responsible for the actions of others.

Again, ACC legislation and it's associated levies are aimed at covering the costs of the health services required to address the outcomes of accidents. So far so good, but they do this by the simple expediency of recovering those costs from those that can afford it, not necessarily from those responsible for the incidents in question.

[Grahameeboy]

None of which I dispute. I simply ask if it's reasonable that anyone, (including a commercial enterprise) should be held responsible for the actions of others.

Again, ACC legislation and it's associated levies are aimed at covering the costs of the health services required to address the outcomes of accidents. So far so good, but they do this by the simple expediency of recovering those costs from those that can afford it, not necessarily from those responsible for the incidents in question.

ACC's actions are a bit arse about face.......seems they think that a Business has greater responsibility than a drunk driver...imagine if they paid out and then recovery via instalments from the drunk driver.

The argument is that we pay this 'Insurance' so are entitled to claim/benefit, however, a drunk driver would be in breach of their car insurance and would not get paid out if alcohol was the causation

[ynot slow]

My piss take on this is,most affco type companies have a drug test protocol,guess what might happen ,dude gets tested,surprise positive,gets hospital treatment and when fit to go back to work has no job,possibly due to clause in his employment contract re drug test etc.

[peasea]

You know what would be interesting?

All kb'ers giving up their jobs to run ACC. That'd be interesting.

[ynot slow]

You know what would be interesting?

All kb'ers giving up their jobs to run ACC. That'd be interesting.

Shit yeah, ditch the farkin acc levy part of rego, saves about $165 plus gst per annum,just done rego for bike and car came in the mail,about $45 difference due to cost of bike prangs,and they add gst to it.

[inlinefour]

Or perhaps you don't know what I'm on about. I have no intention of getting offside with you here, I was poking the Borax at gang members generally with that comment, not belittling anything you had to say. I don't think ACC, AFFCO or anyone else should shell out one penny for the dork. Let him get shot, he chose that lifestyle.

The bit I don't understand, is why everyone is carrying on about the gang mamber thing or if he was smoking a spliff. At the end of the day, everyone gets the cover, be it private insurance or ACC and the particular type of breed of the individual would have no impact. All I see is Affco & their private insurance provider trying to pass the bill onto ACC and ACC have rightfully said no. I agree about the lifestyle thing and about handing out for his injuries, however there are plenty of crims out there that have been injured while undertaking criminal activities and are fully covered by ACC. They might have been working within their chosen profession, but they sure as hell don't pay ACC levies for uplifting the telly out of Gran's flat...

[inlinefour]

how about we shoot the gangsta again :argue:

and make sure that all drive-bys are conducted by those who have allready passed the appropriate marksman skills. Will save the tax payer a bundle. :niceone::devil2:

[sweetp]

Just want to clear up one misconseption here, AFFCO would be in what is called the ACC Partnership programme. They haven't "opted out", they still have to pay ACC leavies but just not as much (they will pay between 10 - 20%). For the privilage of doing this they accept all finacial responsibility for employees (treatment costs, lost earnings etc) and have the privilage of being audited annually. Why do they do this? Well they do save money but the hassle and the costs can outway this, but most do it because they believe that they are good employers and can get their employees rehabilitated quicker. Having run a number of these programmes, and seeing cases like this you have to wonder is it worth it? You get the cost, you can run huge liability risks and you still have to pay ACC.

I know what the law says but really, how can a company protect its employees from being shot in the carpark? And really why should they?

[BAD DAD]

Can't see what they're arguing about. AFFCO and ACC should just agree that neither they or the other of them are responsible and let the big tough gang member fight his own battles.

[peasea]

The bit I don't understand, is why everyone is carrying on about the gang mamber thing or if he was smoking a spliff. At the end of the day, everyone gets the cover, be it private insurance or ACC and the particular type of breed of the individual would have no impact. All I see is Affco & their private insurance provider trying to pass the bill onto ACC and ACC have rightfully said no. I agree about the lifestyle thing and about handing out for his injuries, however there are plenty of crims out there that have been injured while undertaking criminal activities and are fully covered by ACC. They might have been working within their chosen profession, but they sure as hell don't pay ACC levies for uplifting the telly out of Gran's flat...

Agreed. I guess we just get focussed on the payee being less than honourable and that pisses everyone off. Especially when deserving cases go without, but you're right, the paperwork doesn't differentiate.

[Steam]

...how can a company protect its employees from being shot in the carpark? And really why should they?

Let me get this straight... you are saying a company shouldn't need to even try to provide a safe environment for its workers?
Fuck that for a joke. Providing a safe workplace is number one priority for any company. Safety first, that's the mantra in factories, ships, workplaces everywhere.
Sure in this AFFCO case it may have been impossible, but...

[sAsLEX]

Where do you work steam?


Is any location in public view out to a range of say 600m?

Is there steel armour completely surrounding you car park?


I mean, I work on a Navy base, more secure than the majority of workplaces, yet if I had to plan to shoot myself it would not be that difficult. (hmm I mean from say driving by etc not with a pistol.... ah you know what I mean....)


This was not an ACCIDENT is was a premeditated attack, nothing an employer can do to stop this sort of thing.

[Brian d marge]

, and seeing cases like this you have to wonder is it worth it? y?

Its worth it because they can decide. example blunt knives on the processing chain and they can ride rough shod over the little person , which does save a few pennies ,

Family member is out of touch at the moment , putting submissions to the court , but can get the skinny on this one as soon as she pops on line

At the end of the day its money , and the little person bends over and just takes it ...

all in the name of returns to shareholders

At least there aren't any 12 yr olds under the looms holding the yarn together ,,,( yet ) and the passage in dickens about the philosophers watching the small child

Our society has /is removing a persons value of self , and we all need to feel important and belonging . valued etc ... which is why we have gangs I suppose ........ trouble is I am doing quite well in the environment that has caused this mess .....and I don't want to give up my new mobile phone ,,,,,


Still anyone who behaves in such a violent manner should , be given a Huge sentence and be made to help the rest of society ,,such as giving me decent broadband ,,, ( skuzzys can dig just as well as thieving managers !!!

Stephen

***
I pity the man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth will starve in the process.

[JimO]

Let me get this straight... you are saying a company shouldn't need to even try to provide a safe environment for its workers?
Fuck that for a joke. Providing a safe workplace is number one priority for any company. Safety first, that's the mantra in factories, ships, workplaces everywhere.
Sure in this AFFCO case it may have been impossible, but...



do they have to have armed guards at every corner

[Steam]

nothing an employer can do to stop this sort of thing.


do they have to have armed guards at every corner

That's why I specifically said "Sure in this AFFCO case it may have been impossible."

[Grahameeboy]

That's why I specifically said "Sure in this AFFCO case it may have been impossible."

Surely in any case..............we live in a nuetral and pretty safe place called NZ so we should expect Businesses to be surroiunded by minefields.