H & S foolishness has sunk to new depths

[Ivan McIntosh]

Blame the lawyers for this overkill.

Don't blame us for this nonsense. This is public service empire building, nothing less. We were cut out of this stuff by the ACC legislation perfectly well, and frankly didn't mind. Now we have the masochistic job of trying to advise on it.

[Ivan McIntosh]

Actually, I will also (seeing as I'm in the mood to blame all and sundry regardless of guilt ) lay some blame at the feet of the construction and industrial cowboys who for a long time cared little about the lives of their employees which were being lost on a far too regular basis. The fact the resulting legislation goes too far, or induces too much caution, does not absolve the people that created a problem needing fixing...

[Lanthanide]

There's a lot of ignorance in this thread about what the new Health and Safety At Work Act actually covers and requires.

It's the same (in my view) as a shopkeeper - they advertise and invite customers into their shop. It is the shopkeepers place of work.
But it's not the customers place of work.

The Health and Safety At Work Act applies to Workplaces. The PCBU has a duty of care to everyone at that work place. Obviously this covers the employees, but it also covers customers and general members of the public.

If you are working on a construction site, you should put up fencing (temporary or permanent), to prevent access to the site by members of the public. If someone is determined to get into your site and they climb over the fence and hurt themselves, then they'll (almost certainly) be liable for any injury they suffer. But if you fail to put up any fences at all, and someone comes onto your site and injures themselves, then you are highly likely to be found liable.

The law requires PCBUs do what is Reasonably Practicable to Eliminate, Isolate or Minimise hazards to people's health. Putting up fencing is generally held to be a Reasonably Practicable way to Isolate risk on a building site, so if you don't do it, you're likely to be breaking the act, and a Worksafe investigator could give you a spot fine. Obviously 99.99% of the time people break the H&S act and nothing comes of it - but when they break it, and it results in an accident/injury, and there's an investigation, they get in trouble.

So, circling back to shop-owners - The Warehouse has a duty of care for all of the employees and customers who enter their premises to shop. They should keep the aisles tidy and free of tripping hazards. If there is a wet floor, they should take Reasonably Practicable steps to Eliminate, Isolate or Minimise the hazard presented by that wet floor - this will usually mean mopping up the water and putting up a 'wet floor' sign. For large wet areas, they may be cordoned off, thus Isolating the hazard.

If the customer falls over - do we fine the shopkeeper for not listing all the risks possible in the shop, outside the shop etc?

If the customer fell over because of some action or inaction by the shop owner, then they may be in breach of the Health and Safety At Work Act. If they fall over because they tripped on their shoelaces, then there's no responsibility from the shopkeeper for that.

Shops don't have lists of risks posted outside the shop for the public to view, because these lists of hazards do practically nothing to Eliminate, Isolate or Minimise the hazards present in the store, precisely because no one reads them. A control is only worth having if it is effective.

Instead of putting up a sign saying "don't trip on all of the stock we leave sitting around in the aisles", the correct response is to Eliminate the hazard by cleaning up the aisles so there are no tripping hazards in the first place.

Have you seen any shops listing all the risks in the shop that customers might have to contend with?
Why would an open home be any different?

Firstly, open homes are Workplaces, because the real estate agent is carrying out work there. They are responsible for the health and safety of the members of the public who visit the house.

Secondly, open homes are different from shops for many reasons:
1. Each home is unique and has different potential hazards, whereas shops generally all follow the same sorts of layouts and purpose (to sell product)
2. There are many fewer people who attend each open home, so it is Reasonably Practicable for the Worker at the site (the agent) to have individual 1 on 1 contact with each member of the public that visits the house. It is not Reasonably Practicable for a large store like The Warehouse to do this.

Now referring to the OP in this thread, the example hazards given here are silly and stupid. You only need to list hazards that are relevant to that particular house. For example if your work has a microwave in the staff break room, you don't need to put up instructions about the safe operation of the microwave, because a microwave is a standard domestic appliance that it is assumed everyone knows how to operate safely.

In terms of houses, the most likely hazard that a real estate agent would need to warn people about would be a floor level change, where putting a sign saying "mind the step" could prevent tripping injuries. If it's a cold day and there's frost outside on a path, a Reasonably Practicable step could be to Eliminate the frost by running the hose on the ground to melt it first (so long as it wouldn't freeze up and make it worse) - thus Eliminating the hazard (although replacing it with a Wet Surface hazard, but this should be significantly safer than a Frosty Surface hazard), or to cover the frost up by putting non-slip rubber matting over the top of it. Unpainted concrete does not present any sort of slipping hazard; if anything, painted concrete would. Pretty much all houses are surrounded by streets which have traffic on them, and in any event the street is not part of the Workplace, which is the house. My sister's house has an unfenced stream at the rear boundary, so that definitely would need to be noted as a hazard, and actually for an open home it would be Reasonably Practicable to hire temporary fencing for it (they're going to be building a fence shortly anyway).

About the only hazard in that list which would be worth mentioning is the log burner presenting a risk of burning injury. However if the fire is not actually lit and going, then there is no hazard, and therefore no need to mention it on the hazards list.

The real estate agents have gone overboard with listing all the hazards they can imagine, in the belief that if they do this, they are less liable for any accident that may occur on the site. It's easy to understand their approach, however it's quite possible that in focusing on these 'standard' hazards and giving a blanket 'beware of unpainted surfaces' warning, they are not actually carrying out a proper site hazard survey, and therefore increasing their liability for an accident if it were to occur. The entire point of the H&S at work act is to make people think about the hazards present in their workplace and apply appropriate mitigation measures. Having a generic list which you check off items, to get it out of the way as quickly as possible, means people aren't thinking about the hazards present. Thus increasing the likelihood that they'll miss a hazard which ends up causing an injury (perhaps a house has some unusual feature that isn't on the standard checklist provided by the agency, so it's not listed on the hazard form, someone gets injured and then WorkSafe decides that all Reasonably Practicable steps weren't taken to Control the hazard).

Also in general, saying "watch out for X, it's dangerous! watch out for Y, it's dangerous!" can itself be harmful, if you're overloading people with useless information about hazards that aren't actually dangerous. If you go to an open home and see a list of 14 hazards to avoid, you'll probably just nod your head and say "yes, I understand", even if 12 of those hazards are inconsequential. But if you go to an open home and there are only 2 hazards on the list, and when you read the hazards you think "hmm, yes, that is something I should be careful of around this house", then in the second case you're much more likely to be safe with respect to those two hazards, compared to the first case where they were just buried amongst a lot of noise.


In general when looking at any health and safety control that is put in place (or considered to be put in place), there are the two questions to ask: Is the control Reasonably Practicable, and in what way does it Eliminate, Isolate or Minimise the hazard that has been identified? When identifying hazards, you need to take into account how likely the hazard is to occur, and what the consequences could be if that hazard were to occur.

[Ivan McIntosh]

Great post Lanthanide, well worth the read. Thank you.

[sidinz]

Now referring to the OP in this thread, the example hazards given here are silly and stupid. You only need to list hazards that are relevant to that particular house.

Sadly, they had been written on the dotted lines as being 'hazards' specific to the house. A case of feeling like they had to write something to fill the gaps, perhaps?

[eri]

my mother has a care worker come to visit for a couple of hours once a week

for the last couple of years

recently the workers boss came out to fill out a workplace risk assessment for the worker

was there a dog? was it friendly, were their sufficient exits in case of a fire

was their a smoke alarm, a fire extinguisher?

how many rooms, which was the prefered entrance

where was north etc

seemed ott to me

waste of an hour or 2 that someone has to pay for

[Lanthanide]

Sadly, they had been written on the dotted lines as being 'hazards' specific to the house. A case of feeling like they had to write something to fill the gaps, perhaps?

Sure, but I don't think any normal human would write "unpainted surface" as a hazard, unless they had been instructed to do so by someone else, hence why I think they have a standard list of hazards that they refer to.

[Perry]

I admire your stoic patience with this topic.

Having a generic list which you check off items, to get it out of the way as quickly as possible, means people aren't thinking about the hazards present.

In general when looking at any health and safety control that is put in place (or considered to be put in place), there are the two questions to ask:
Is the control Reasonably Practicable
In what way does it Eliminate, Isolate or Minimise the hazard that has been identified?

At times, I suspect that the biggest hazard is the idiots entering the site. Any site.

Education Minister Hekia Parata Asks For Investigation After Reports Of 5-year-olds Struggling To Speak At School
15 Sep 2016

Some children are starting school without the ability to speak in sentences, sparking a government investigation. Education Minister Hekia Parata has asked officials to look into what is behind the apparent trend and what can be done to address it.

[Jerk]

There is just no universe where you should require a hazard sign to enter a livable house. If you're incapable of seeing "hazards" in everyday life to the point you're at serious risk of hurting yourself, you should not be allowed out in public.

[Lanthanide]

Yip Jerk, you're pretty much correct.

These hazard lists for open homes should be very short. Mainly the agent should just be advising that they are responsible for health and safety on site.

[lissie]

Yip Jerk, you're pretty much correct.

These hazard lists for open homes should be very short. Mainly the agent should just be advising that they are responsible for health and safety on site.

That's insane - the H&S Act was brough in after the disaster of Pike River - its supposed to address the lack of H&S in a really dangerous workplace - a coal mine - and others.

A home isn't a workplace. The agent is a contractor not an employee, and the person visiting the open home isn't an employee either. The insanity is that they probably haven't put in any decent regulations in the industries that need them: - mining and logging come to mind.

If you treat people like idiots - you lower the expectation - like seriously someone over the age of 10 doesn't know that wet concrete steps are slipperly?

[Perry]

Seriously? Could be?

[Lanthanide]

The Health and Safety at work act covers all workplaces, not just dangerous ones like mines.

Actually the majority of the provisions are no different than the previous law - real estate agents should have been doing these things since 1993 to comply with the previous law.

The agent is a PCBU so the act applies- saying they're a "contractor" doesn't mean anything. Since they are performing their job, the home is a workplace for the duration of their occupation of it (or, if they were giving access to buyers without being present, it's still a workplace and they're responsible for the health and safety of the visitors).

Mining and logging are covered by the act. Risky industries like those ones are also having additional practice notes and regulations created by Work Safe. Go to their website and have a read.

Like I said, about the only things I can think that should reasonably require controls put in place are:
1. Any tripping hazard from a change in floor level
2. Any burning hazard from a woodburner
3. Any slipping hazard from a frosty path or similar
4. Drowning hazard from a unfenced river or lake - pools should already have fences around them, but worth telling parents to keep an eye on their kids around any fenced water area

[ivanp]

The 4 items you listed above are common sense. Parents are expected to keep an eye on their kids - also just common sense.

Wikipedia: Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people and can reasonably be expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

So why the H&S is needed at all in this case (I.e. Open home)? Other than to create more jobs for bureaucrats and related "businesses"?

[Bobsyouruncle]

It's not needed at all. It is completely ridiculous, that is the whole point of the thread.