What do we think of ACC fining Affco millions for shooting

[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/catalog...cablesteps.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

[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

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.

[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...