Approximately half of all motorcycles in NZ are rego exempt or rego expired right now

[Moise]

I am aware of that and did exactly that and got a written warning for my effort. The employer thought I was having them on as it was a heat exhaustion complaint I had which would have taken me to collapse and maybe die before they would believe with their attitude. Even the Labour Dept was not interested and I was forced to resign. I heard the person that took over my job also resigned for the same reason. Maybe at that point the employer made changes to their ventilation. Where there is no strength in numbers you can easily be ignored but maybe the new OSH regs don't make this so easy for employers to do now.

You would have had every employment lawyer in the country lining up to take a constructive dismissal case!

[Gremlin]

Any employee, period has the right to question any work practice regarding safety.

In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

[russd7]

In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

our work force is becoming seriously dumbed down due to the fact that everything has to be set for the muppet.

[Akzle]

our work force is becoming seriously dumbed down due to the fact that everything has to be set for the muppet.

and as soon as it's idiot proof, there always seems to be better idiots...

[Ocean1]

In the real world, it appears more that now the employee wanders around, not paying much attention, because the employer has made the environment safe, and gets in the shit if they haven't.

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else.

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

[pritch]

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

A lot of safety problems arise from the actions of first level supervisors.

I remember being shouted at, "You've got a safety margin, use it."
That's not what safety margins are for. Anyway there was ony going to be a few minutes delay until the correct gear was available. To a drop kick sitting in a ute it probably seemed a long time, but he wasn't qualified and knew not that of which he spoke. (Shouted?)

Some guys were impatient and would ignore safety rules. We had a very ugly near miss which resulted in a very pale Maori. As a result he and his team gained an enhanced understanding of why some rules existed.

There was a complicated lock out tag system for the electricians, one impatient engineer removed a tag, switched on, and an electrician was electrocuted. No fault of the victim. He survived, but the problem was caused by the impatience of the engineer. That caused some unhappiness among the other electricians and probably a few days industrial action.

There's no shortage of impatient idiots.

[Murray]

Yes true but after looking at what people get awarded when they win such cases the legal cost would have likely exceeded any amount I was awarded. From my experience
I would go to the media before the Labour Dept if I found myself in a similar situation again.

what a load of crap - there are many lawyers/law firms out there that work on a percentage of payouts.

Ever heard of 0800 SACKED????

[Ocean1]

A lot of safety problems arise from the actions of first level supervisors.

I remember being shouted at, "You've got a safety margin, use it."
That's not what safety margins are for. Anyway there was ony going to be a few minutes delay until the correct gear was available. To a drop kick sitting in a ute it probably seemed a long time, but he wasn't qualified and knew not that of which he spoke. (Shouted?)

Some guys were impatient and would ignore safety rules. We had a very ugly near miss which resulted in a very pale Maori. As a result he and his team gained an enhanced understanding of why some rules existed.

There was a complicated lock out tag system for the electricians, one impatient engineer removed a tag, switched on, and an electrician was electrocuted. No fault of the victim. He survived, but the problem was caused by the impatience of the engineer. That caused some unhappiness among the other electricians and probably a few days industrial action.

There's no shortage of impatient idiots.

There is, as you say no shortage of people breaking H&S rules, and they're not limited to supervisors. Removing a lock-out tag when you weren't the one that put it there has been an immediate sacking offense in every place I've ever worked.

But here's the thing: Part of H&S culture specifically states that cost of implementation is NOT to be included in any process evaluation. Now, take that to it's natural conclusion, you've got safety costs being applied to markets that simply can't afford them. New house anyone? New roof?

Which is why employers are the only ones financially hammered under the rules, nobody else can afford the compliance cost. Guess what? I can't either.

I've got work for at least a couple of good tech staff, but there's simply no way I'm going to put myself at risk from the possibility that one of them may get hurt. Added to the cost of hiring someone in the first place it's just one compliance nightmare too many.

[old slider]

There is, as you say no shortage of people breaking H&S rules, and they're not limited to supervisors. Removing a lock-out tag when you weren't the one that put it there has been an immediate sacking offense in every place I've ever worked.

But here's the thing: Part of H&S culture specifically states that cost of implementation is NOT to be included in any process evaluation. Now, take that to it's natural conclusion, you've got safety costs being applied to markets that simply can't afford them. New house anyone? New roof?

Which is why employers are the only ones financially hammered under the rules, nobody else can afford the compliance cost. Guess what? I can't either.

I've got work for at least a couple of good tech staff, but there's simply no way I'm going to put myself at risk from the possibility that one of them may get hurt. Added to the cost of hiring someone in the first place it's just one compliance nightmare too many.

Talking about a new roof or even just getting it painted!!!!

The quotes are all pretty good, most around the $2500 mark to blast, rust treat, prime and top coat.

but the added Health and Safety requirements for scaffolding, roof edge protection etc is nearly twice the cost of doing the actual job?, luckily I can get family and friends to go up on the roof without the scaffolding costs, don't figure aye.

[Scubbo]

DOH wrong thread...

[Bass]

Aye. I'm firmly of the opinion that the guy responsible for my safety is me. And the same applies to everyone else.

Which means most current H&S law targets the wrong guy most of the time, there's simply no ethical reason why an employer should be held responsible for any employees safety.

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

[george formby]

Used to think this way but now disagree.

Worked in the food industry (in several of its various forms) for decades now. Workers are hired off the street for usually close to the minimum wage - often Pacific Islanders. They typically have little or no mechanical background and so what is common sense around machinery for you and I, just never occurs to them. In fact this is true for most industrial activities, not just those involving machines. This is NOT stupidity, just inexperience.

If the employer doesn't keep them safe, who will?

Yup. During one of my non hospo incarnations I worked on a Long liner, fishing boat. I was totally ignorant of so much stuff it was not funny and potentially deadly, all day, everyday. Thankfully the Skipper was happy to bark at me 24/7 to keep me safe.

In hospo I've seen some unbelievably ignorant things. A young chef stuck his hand into a fryer to check the temperature......

[rastuscat]

in hospo I've seen some unbelievably ignorant things. A young chef stuck his hand into a fryer to check the temperature......

Which restaurant do I go to for Deep Fried Stupid Chefs Hand? Sounds tasty.

[Bass]

Which restaurant do I go to for Deep Fried Stupid Chefs Hand? Sounds tasty.

See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. It's an extreme case, but consider the possibility that this kid has never done any cooking - he has just started as an apprentice chef. He knows that it's hot but has no practical appreciation of how hot

[rambaldi]

See, this is the sort of thing I was talking about. It's an extreme case, but consider the possibility that this kid has never done any cooking - he has just started as an apprentice chef. He knows that it's hot but has no practical appreciation of how hot

He may have no appreciation before but he certainly would afterwards....