DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 6:17am:


It's called self regulation and companies using safety as a management/disciplinary tool and paying lip service  to actual safety.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 9:39am:


Fines need to reviewed.

For starters, the fine for a driver using a mobile phone in a car should be increased tenfold, and repeat offenders should be prevented from signing up with a Telco ever again.

While we're talking construction, I've noticed something in the last few years: there are an awful lot of pretty young women working on building sites.

What's that all about, then?

Is it a ploy to entice more men into the industry?

Gnads wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 9:53am:

As a worker in the construction business, I don't think what you are saying is correct, most companies supply all the required safety equipment and a safe condition to work... It's usually the old ways of thinking (culture) that is the biggest culprit.... Most sites are long sleeve clothes and hard hat, safety glasses and gloves...  now the only thing that be taken off easy is the Hat , the glove and glasses, most guys wont wear gloves and only wear glasses when its really bright...…
The other biggest problem is effort, if you can do something in a minute to do it the right way or with all safety precautions take 5 mins, most guys, especially at the end of the day will choose the easy way.
I find the "That is the way we have always done it "mentality by the workers the biggest safety concern on sites, now a employer cant do much about that attitude.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 11:06am:



That is strange. Maybe they're all inspired by The Block? You can get pink steel caps now.

Seriously though, it's hard to imagine a recruiting pool for what you're suggesting. Where are these women being sought from? Surely they'd have to be applying for something in the first place?

I have worked in safety in Katherine.

There is definitely a safety culture problem in the N.T.

I have worked for big companies and small companies, I have no doubt we need jail terms for managers and owners if they do not provide a safe work place.

I have been sacked by owners and I have been sacked by managers for trying to keep people safe.
I have also been a business owner with lots of employees,,, and not one injury on the job, so I am not one of those disruptive safety managers from the dark side.

I have also worked for a great company that left me alone to manage safety and I reduced the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate from 22 to 10,,,, just below the industry benchmark.
The owner of that business was about to lose his workers comp insurance,,, and he had letters from 4 other insurers saying they would not insure him. We saved the insurance and he is still in business.

But good employers on safety are few and far between, even on the mines,,, I recon I have seen it all.

Jail for the bad ones is the only answer.

There was a case in WA where there was a death and the investigation showed that the company had done everything right and it was one of the  workers fault,,,  That worker got a fine and the company did not get convicted, (before one of you clowns brings this up) Companies are not in trouble if they do it right and a worker stuffs up.

I dont think I want to go back and work in safety, there are too many scum bag businesses out there that will sac you if you do safety right. Its no win for the safety person, you have to do things right even when the company is full of crooks

If the Harbour Bridge was built today.
It wouldn't have got done - simply 'too dangerous' for WH&S.
Also the budget would have blown out to x50 more because of 'safety issues'.

The Laws of today only protect those who should not be in that workplace in the first place or are not good enough to competently be there effectively.

The Train was going 100kmphr - 16 people died over 9 years of journeying.
Now, thanks to WH&S - only 1 person died, while the Train travelled at a safe speed of just 5kmphr. 

This is why Australia 'out-sources' everything.
This is why Australia has never taken on any Major Schemes   since the Harbour Bridge, Opera House and Snowy Hydro.

Build a National Canal System to alleviate drought stricken areas from flooded areas? Nah - too dangerous !! 
Only if the 'Legislation' can cash in on it and raise the budget cost of building it to x100 more! 

Jasin wrote on May 1^st, 2019 at 9:53pm:


May I remind you of a little bridge called the West Gate, where 35 construction workers died and completion of the bridge was delayed several years, due to a makeshift solution to add weights to reduce the height of one of the spans so that it could be joined correctly.

How many billions of dollars did Australia waste on medical costs and environmental clean ups because the dangers of Asbestos were ignored?

When you look at what caused both Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear incidents, both could have been prevented with better backup systems that would've cost a few more million dollars to build in both instances. If such an attitude towards safety had been adopted at the beginning of the Nuclear Age, the public wouldn't have the same fear towards nuclear power that it does today. In addition, we probably would've already solved the concerns associated with Global Warming by phasing out coal fired power plants and replacing them with nuclear.