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

[Bass]

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

Good judgement comes from experience. Unfortunately, experience comes from bad judgement.

[Ocean1]

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?

Not saying there's not a need for training at all, just that there's no ethical room to blame anyone else for most accidents.

Inexperience, stupidity, unsafe gear or any other combination of holes in the cheese there's just no way that anyone else can be responsible for my actions.

As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

[Moi]

... As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

Is that not today's mantra?

I'm not responsible for myself and who can I blame when it goes wrong?

[Ocean1]

Is that not today's mantra?

I'm not responsible for myself and who can I blame when it goes wrong?

And what do you suppose is driving that?

[Moi]

And what do you suppose is driving that?

I am sure there are those who would lay the blame squarely at the feet of ACC and their argument could be that you will be treated for an accident and have the accompanying benefits even if that accident was partly or wholly of your making. Before ACC would the workers' compensation act been as generous as ACC is today if it could be shown that your injury was a result of you not following sensible work practices?

There will be others who see it as progression within society of people not taking responsibility for their own actions and looking for escapes to blame when they have an accident or things go wrong in their life.

I am sure there will be other reasons offered as well...

[russd7]

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?

two things i live by concerning H&S and have been for a number of years,
A/ H&S is more about attitude than anything else
B/ there is no such thing as common sense, it is purely learned response to a certain set of circumstances.
experience is what brings what people refer to as commonsense.

[Ocean1]

I am sure there are those who would lay the blame squarely at the feet of ACC and their argument could be that you will be treated for an accident and have the accompanying benefits even if that accident was partly or wholly of your making. Before ACC would the workers' compensation act been as generous as ACC is today if it could be shown that your injury was a result of you not following sensible work practices?

There will be others who see it as progression within society of people not taking responsibility for their own actions and looking for escapes to blame when they have an accident or things go wrong in their life.

I am sure there will be other reasons offered as well...

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

[Moi]

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

Totally agree with you - ACC has much to recommend it. However, like anything, it could be improved and that has been debated elsewhere on this site...

So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

Again, agree with you.

[Akzle]

ACC makes sense firstly because it eliminates legal costs, and given the fact that the US spends more on medical legal costs than they do on the associated health and insurance costs that implies that all of us are getting more than twice the value, regardless of blame. It also makes sense in terms of a single, bulk funded accident repair and income insurance system, which entails serious economies of scale.

The fact that it spreads it's costs across entities with less than full regard to that entities cost to the system irks some, but it's performance in terms of delivered value across the board makes that articular bitch a bit redundant. In short; if it was fair it'd be more expensive for everyone.

So I'd say that while the effect of ACC may contribute to the general progression of people not taking responsibility for their own actions it's value is otherwise excellent. It's the individual, somewhat childish refusal to be responsible for themselves that seems to be endemic.

Difficult to see how that'll change, with no end in sight to the ways we compensate people for their failure earn what they want and discourage people from producing all that they could.

yeah. See. How about instead of all this huggy helpy hippy shit, anyone who gets injured by stupidity, has the shit kicked out of them instead. Save a fuck load of ambilances and creates jobs for angry people.

[Bass]

Not saying there's not a need for training at all, just that there's no ethical room to blame anyone else for most accidents.

Inexperience, stupidity, unsafe gear or any other combination of holes in the cheese there's just no way that anyone else can be responsible for my actions.

As soon as they are then I'm no longer responsible at all.

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.

[old slider]

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.

Have to agree, sadly even with the very best in training methods, experience and appreciation of the dangers, shit still happens, often its the people who have been doing it for awhile that come unstuck, complacency? familiarity? etc. I don't know.

Yes we have a terrible work related injury record in NZ , we can certainly improve and are doing so.

We also come from a get stuck in and do it type of culture which I actually like.
As soon as all workers need to stand or sit around each morning for 30 mins listening and watching on the correct use of things like a two step ladder we may lose that.

[Ocean1]

Thought long and hard about this. Me on my bike on the road - agreed, no argument.

However, at work, I am responsible to my boss for my staff's actions, but they are responsible to me for their own.

To take someone with absolutely no appreciation of the inherent dangers and drop them into an industrial environment, is never gonna end well, no matter how careful the person concerned is.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you can blame that person for the nasty outcome.

The easiest thing in the world to blame someone else. Too easy. It starts with feeling sorry for the injured party and a feeling that they didn't do much so very wrong. But there's this remaining need to apportion blame, so it falls to someone else, someone who failed to prevent the injury, the damage. The boss, the cops, the govt. Someone who orta have been "responsible" for the victim.

A senior specialist may be responsible for training and mentoring a trainee or apprentice, but that doesn't infer blame by omission for that trainee's actions.

Other than that, all I've got is a conviction that everyone is responsible for their own safety, that nobody has the right to expect someone else to take that responsibility from them. Part of that conviction is an awareness that in giving responsibility for any of your behavior to someone else you also risk giving them a lot more, and you risk becoming something for which others have little respect.


A Labour supporter.

[dman]

We preload on drinks before heading to town when they were $5. Which i thought was a ripoff.

Ah the good old days! But if you hunt hard you can find a few places still like that, such as tourist bars or student bars on mid week nights.

[Oakie]

There is a surprising amount of insight and intelligent comment on the last couple of pages of this thread. Some I'll even copy and take to work with me (being the Health and Safety guy). Had to stop and make sure that I was still in KB!

[Oakie]

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

Absolutely true in respect of the way you carry out your work in the way instructed but ...

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.

... the employee has to rely on the employer for (just off the top of my head)

> have I been trained properly in codes of practice?
> have I been trained properly as to how to use this tool / machinery?
> is the tool / machine I'm using of good quality? (or is it a cheapy that will break in time)
> is the environment I'm working in producing harmful effects?(asbestos etc)
> is the work vehicle I use in good repair?
and 100 other things.

To me, and the way I explain it when I do HSE trainings, is like this. If I borrow my neighbour's chainsaw to cut down my other neighbour's tree, then I am ethically obliged to use the chainsaw properly and return it in the same condition in which I borrowed it. It's the same for my employees. I am borrowing them from their family for the day so I am ethically responsible for not allowing them to work in an uneccesarily dangerous situation so i can return them intact to their family at the end of the day.

To ensure my employees' safety is absolutely my ethical responsibility. If I've done that and then despite my best efforts and full attention they still go and do something dumb well that is on them so I think that yes:

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

but that only comes after I have first put in my best efforts to ensure their safety.

It's like the guidelines around the HSWA say repeatedly 'Everyone has a part to play in health and safety at the workplace".