Chorus outside employees not allowed to wear short sleeves?

Forums › Off topic › Chorus outside employees not allowed to wear short sleeves?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

307 posts

Ultimate Geek

#989041 17-Feb-2014 17:21

I work for transfield services as a contractor to chorus and it is correct we have a long long policy - long pants and long sleeves it sucks in the middle of summer but you get used to it after a while just keep the fluids up and your all good to go (drink 3-4 litrea on a hot day) and its a thing out of australia why we have to do it - which is quiet annoying but ya learn to live with it tbu

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989069 17-Feb-2014 17:52

I've just been there getting ACC accreditation for our company to tertiary level and its quite involved and showed how dumbed down our society has become to the point of signs saying an electric just is hot but the consequences for not doing this can be quite severe both for company and staff.

Whilst in the military it was madatory to have long sleeves and trousers whilst overseas in hot climates, one for insect bites and the other sunburn which in those days was a chargeable offence as a self inflicted wound as it could mean being taken out of field, not sure what the go is now but suspect the rules are more stringent.

I also worked for Fulton Hogan for a time mainly in Central Otago and during summer we wore the bare minimum but also had, during my time, a person that had hot bitumen spill on him causing massive burns to most of his body so can also see the side of having to cover up.

It would be great if we could have people that thought for themselves, sadly the reality is we need to lead them through life.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#989073 17-Feb-2014 18:06

Cbfd: I work for transfield services as a contractor to chorus and it is correct we have a long long policy - long pants and long sleeves it sucks in the middle of summer but you get used to it after a while just keep the fluids up and your all good to go (drink 3-4 litrea on a hot day) and its a thing out of australia why we have to do it - which is quiet annoying but ya learn to live with it tbu

isn't the NZ sun worse than AU? We have less Ozone i thought

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#989126 17-Feb-2014 19:02

jeffnz: a person that had hot bitumen spill on him causing massive burns to most of his body so can also see the side of having to cover up.

Theres an example of a work hazard that should be eliminated, minimized or isolated.
I would expect the company to be prosecuted if it hadnt supplied the correct safety gear.

I doubt putting a worker or company in front of the Judge for sunburn will carry the same penalty......

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989144 17-Feb-2014 19:16

SpookyAwol:
jeffnz: a person that had hot bitumen spill on him causing massive burns to most of his body so can also see the side of having to cover up.

Theres an example of a work hazard that should be eliminated, minimized or isolated.
I would expect the company to be prosecuted if it hadnt supplied the correct safety gear.

I doubt putting a worker or company in front of the Judge for sunburn will carry the same penalty......

this was another time in the 80's so you can't judge by todays standards, i was only using as an example of working in a hot climate and the hazards that existed and the chances we took sometimes

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#989159 17-Feb-2014 19:43

jeffnz: this was another time in the 80's so you can't judge by todays standards

This actually highlights one of the problems. For immediate issues like accidents, you're correct. However I suspect that in 20-30 years, if you can prove that your melanoma was a result of your job today, the company could be liable even if they took some steps to minimise the risk. Basically, if the employer doesn't do everything they can to eliminate or minimise the risk, they're setting themselves up for a fall.

A few years back, law makers were looking to make you protect workers against unforseeable risks as well. frightening.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#989161 17-Feb-2014 19:45

Having worked in the heavy primary industry for 20 years, I can assure you things havent changed!

At the end of the day, the company has to be seen to be saying or doing the right things.
If someone gets hurt or suffers crippling sunburn, they can then roll out the rule book and show that they tried to minimize the risk. If the worker failed to follow, then the onus is on them.

Id love to see if there is an official chorus policy

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989163 17-Feb-2014 19:58

SpookyAwol: Having worked in the heavy primary industry for 20 years, I can assure you things havent changed!

At the end of the day, the company has to be seen to be saying or doing the right things.
If someone gets hurt or suffers crippling sunburn, they can then roll out the rule book and show that they tried to minimize the risk. If the worker failed to follow, then the onus is on them.

Id love to see if there is an official chorus policy

I would suggest you are incorrect in that they don't need to just show they had a rule book but need to support and ensure people comply or disciplinary action should follow if not they are liable.

I have worked in a manufacturing environment heading up the H&S team and had endless problems with the Unions not prepared to help with staff wearing using and following H&S policies so we resorted to disciplinary action resulting in some losing their jobs. Having a policy isn't enough you need to be using it and ensuring it happens otherwise you pay the price of any accident.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

thecatsgoolies

414 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#989188 17-Feb-2014 20:21

Kingy: The thing is, sunscreen is a temporary solution. I barely trust it enough to stay in the sun for more than an hour. And even if you do trust it enough to rely on it's 2 hour protection, it's not effective if you just apply more after 2 hours and expect it to work for another 2.

If you're outside working all day in the sun you need to be fully covered in order to protect yourself. Aussie construction workers wear pants/long sleeves/hats with neck flaps. Which is fantastic. The sun in this part of the world isn't to be messed with.

I'd even argue the point that in some cases a long sleeved shirt can keep you cooler than being in direct sunlight.

Have we actually had sun recently? I work in an airconditioned office so rarely venture out apart from BBQ's and walking to my car. On a lighter note...the higher the SPF the better protection obviously. Times burn time, should stay on and be ample for more than a couple of hours. The only reason you would have to reapply is if you rub the sunblock off, generally NOT water resistant. Nice of the company to care though :-)

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989195 17-Feb-2014 20:32

4. Enforce

Finally, if all else fails, explain that the law requires you to provide gear that protects employees against hazards that can't be controlled in any other way. You’re required to make sure they use it. Ensure they understand that wearing protective gear is not an optional extra.

Make it a condition

To remove any doubt over this matter, make the use of safety equipment and clothing a condition of employment by including a clause in the employment agreement. Here’s a sample clause you can adapt for your business:

Health and Safety

As part of the Employee's job, the Employee will come into contact with health and safety hazards from time to time. The Employer shall provide appropriate equipment, information and training for dealing with these hazards. The Employee shall take all reasonable precautions at all times when dealing with hazards to ensure that safe and appropriate practices are followed. In addition, the Employee shall comply with all health and safety directions and policies of the Employer, including wearing personal protective equipment."

source

the last clause is where you have it in your employment contract, once in there you then have the avenue available to properly enforce it. As part of ACC accreditation you need to show this type of commitment to following the HSEA.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#989265 17-Feb-2014 22:07

jeffnz
I would suggest you are incorrect in that they don't need to just show they had a rule book but need to support and ensure people comply or disciplinary action should follow if not they are liable.

I have worked in a manufacturing environment heading up the H&S team and had endless problems with the Unions not prepared to help with staff wearing using and following H&S policies so we resorted to disciplinary action resulting in some losing their jobs. Having a policy isn't enough you need to be using it and ensuring it happens otherwise you pay the price of any accident.

Thankyou for suggesting I am wrong, however not all companies are the same - I had the displeasure of working for one that was all about appearances and all about profit.
An ethical company does support their workers, but unfortunately not all do that.

My story is yours in reverse - I was a union and health and safety delegate. Management turned a blind eye to that sort of complaint as it cost them profit. Ultimately company management lost their jobs and were fined for health and safety breaches. All of which is slightly higher level stuff than wearing a shirt :)

mattwnz

20157 posts

Uber Geek

#989267 17-Feb-2014 22:14

SpookyAwol:
jeffnz: a person that had hot bitumen spill on him causing massive burns to most of his body so can also see the side of having to cover up.

Theres an example of a work hazard that should be eliminated, minimized or isolated.
I would expect the company to be prosecuted if it hadnt supplied the correct safety gear.

I doubt putting a worker or company in front of the Judge for sunburn will carry the same penalty......

What about schools requiring kids to wear uniforms, which usually involves shorts and short shirts. Wonder how long before that will be stopped.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#989332 18-Feb-2014 00:03

While this thread is on the H&S policies of Chorus. Does anyone know if they provide or allow their staff to buy Mitsubishi L300 Vans anymore? Reason being - their very bad crash safety rating.

http://rightcar.govt.nz/find.html?srt=d&dir=a&q=1|28||2|1301||3|4013||&keywords=Mitsubishi%20L300&Make=Mitsubishi&Model=L300-Model&years=2010-

Reason Im asking is the company provided van I have to drive for my job is an L300. There is a chance that my boss might be purchasing new vans soon. I don’t want him to be buying more L300s. It would make it easier to convince him if I could give him examples of large companies fleet policies. To do with Vehicle safety.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#989848 18-Feb-2014 18:02

SpookyAwol:
jeffnz
I would suggest you are incorrect in that they don't need to just show they had a rule book but need to support and ensure people comply or disciplinary action should follow if not they are liable.

I have worked in a manufacturing environment heading up the H&S team and had endless problems with the Unions not prepared to help with staff wearing using and following H&S policies so we resorted to disciplinary action resulting in some losing their jobs. Having a policy isn't enough you need to be using it and ensuring it happens otherwise you pay the price of any accident.

Thankyou for suggesting I am wrong, however not all companies are the same - I had the displeasure of working for one that was all about appearances and all about profit.
An ethical company does support their workers, but unfortunately not all do that.

My story is yours in reverse - I was a union and health and safety delegate. Management turned a blind eye to that sort of complaint as it cost them profit. Ultimately company management lost their jobs and were fined for health and safety breaches. All of which is slightly higher level stuff than wearing a shirt :)

my comments were/are based on what i have seen and also a working knowledge of the requirements under the HSEA.

I think all companies are about profit or they should be as that is what they are paid for but its false economy to ignore regulatiosn and only do the window dressing and that is just plain bad management.

Its not all about supporting workers its a two way street and my experience with Unions is they want what they can get for thier guys but won't help ensure they comply with some aspects of H&S and see that as a company thing which is strange given they all purport to be looking after their guys but if they aren't pushing H&S they are just the same as bosses paying lip service to it. It seems , like political parties, they choose their corner and won't move from it.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

bagheera

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

#991349 20-Feb-2014 19:56

you think it bad for chorus guys - they have it easy compared to a road worker on a State Highway - even in northland with 30+c temp this summer they have to have safe boots, safe eyeware, high vis clothing, long sleeves shirts & long pants, safety helmets, gloves - then they have to have lots of breaks as they are over heating.......

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/health-and-safety-ppe/docs/health-and-safety-ppe.pdf

1 | 2 | 3 | 4