Jump to content

Proposed OSH legislation ammendment


Recommended Posts

I read this article and while it was written from a car club enthusiast point of view, I wondered if it would apply to yacht clubs also.

 

"The change had arisen due to an amendment in the legislation – intended to broaden responsibility for health and safety and reduce "workplace" injury and death figures by 25 per cent by 2020 – redefining "employer" as "Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking" (PCBU), Tapp said.  In case of accident leading to injury or death, that meant volunteer-run organisations would now be defined as PCBUs under most circumstances, and therefore liable for fines of up to $600,000 and five years' imprisonment."

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/69056183/proposed-law-change-could-have-big-impact-on-volunteerrun-clubs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's great that it includes clubs and volunteer societies. NZ is a place where we respect each other and look after each other.

 

Seems to me that your only duty would be to behave reasonably.

 

Ask yourself how would you treat your own friends and loved ones if they came on an activity with you?

 

Would you give them a safety briefing? Would you make sure they weren't in danger through their own ignorance or your negligence?

 

Like I say, the most important concept in a civilised society that follows the rule of law is "what would a reasonable person do?"

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Making teachers personally liable for accidents is next.

 

So they'll just stop undertaking any outside school activity

 

 

"Seems to me that your only duty would be to behave reasonably."  Except where Mr Beaureaucrat decides you've been 'unreasonable' and destroys your life.  Witness the farce where the Master of the interisland ferry that was prosecuted by MSA.  Whish is run by a bunch of ex Plods who have no idea of how ships operate.

 

Get out of our lives!!!

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the sugar police. Gobsmacked that our national news was headlined by 9 cent bottles of softdrink which concerned some lobby group and a National Name and shame for the supermarket.

 

Just don't Freeking buy it if its a concern to you.

 

Mind you, probably highlighted a break-even point cost wise on a bottle of softdrink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where you coming from Wal and I certainly acknowledge the dangers of vicious stupid people be they bureacrats, judges or volunteer organisers. The question then becomes, as always, what's the lesser of two evils - the chance of a vicious stupid bureacucrat or a society that tries to make people responsible for their actions.

 

Sugar police, nicotine police, McDonalds fat humburger police, water police. Problem is policing the police and if the police are policed well, I'm happy. Corporations making profit from human weakness? I'm not happy. It costs me money in higher taxes for our health system to pick up the mess the corporations leave behind. Speaking of which, deposit legislation on bottles or an outright ban on plastic bottles like some jurisdictions have done would make me happy too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i am guessing here ,that for clubs holding races to ensure vessels have the right safety gear,not skipper just signing declaration,ood has absolute control whether to start a race or abandon?not just skippers responsibility as we know some skippers apply pressure to ood to hold a race,can see this leading to clubs to pay a higher acc levy worst still the ood saying all must have one reef in and a number 2 headsail and no use of kites in 20knots or more.

The fun police stopping fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...or a society that tries to make people responsible for their actions.

 

I believe this is the point Wal is trying to make: legislation is taking the responsibility from the synapses-challenged to not be numpties and placing this on others in an onerous and unfair manner.  This in turn leads to less thinking required to keep breathing, so legislation ratchets up another notch, and on the circle ever tightens. 

 

If individuals who break the rules or ignore advice and are not acquainted at all with common sense injure themselves, then the responsibility should lie with them. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

not so sure about that Mothership. Common sense to you and me is not common sense to others who may lack our experience. Secondly some people are sociopaths who don't care if their negligence causes harm and may actually revel in it. More of these people can be found at the top of organisations than the rest of "normal" people who just want to get on with their lives and trust that others will behave reasonably. Many organisations need firm legislative control, as we all know, to keep them in line and force them to behave reasonably - so to me it's nothing to do with stupidity, it's more to protect us against sociopaths. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolving individuals of all consequences of decision making isn't conducive to successful, happy individuals or society.  

 

Yes; we should look after our young and others who are unable to make decisions for sound reasons, but allowing everyone to draw on society and not contribute is insanity.  Mankind will eventually choke on its own bureaucracy and wither when there is no reward for risk.  The individual benefits will be legislated out of existence (i.e. 'fun', feeling of achievement, etc), and non-existent collectively. 

 

Organisations do need legislative control, as the majority are in existence to return reward to investors, which is incongruent with good society. What we shouldn't do is shovel all responsibility for others onto individual scapegoats. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Volunteer directors or other officers of a PCBU – volunteer officers of a PCBU will owe the due diligence duty but it is not an offence if they fail to meet this duty. Directors or officers of a volunteer association will not owe any due diligence duty as the volunteer association is not a PCBU."

​From work safe site. Becomes an issue if a volunteer (club officer) employees someone. Then they have a duty of care. More info is due out mid year (now?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about control of the masses.Taking away freedoms,imposing licensing  which means more taxing and fees.The momentum of this tactic is increasing as todays modern generation get used to being manipulated and exploited.It's been a sad fact that throughout the ages 3% or thereabouts of the population live off the other 97% through fear,intimidation,war,manipulation , control ,greed and envy..This legislation is just a variation on the theme of control factors ranging from religion,debt,class structures,poverty and violence to name some the world has suffered and is suffering from.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

mothership said

1. Absolving individuals of all consequences of decision making isn't conducive to successful, happy individuals or society.  

2. allowing everyone to draw on society and not contribute is insanity

 

For clarification, I don't subscribe to either of those views and I don't think OSH is about that.

 

I agree with armchair, partly. Though, I'm not sure that the sociopaths are 3%  - they might be a smaller or larger percentage. Where I disagree is that I think a rule based society (as long as the masses can help make the rules) gives power to the masses, so OSH is not about control of the masses by the sociopaths. In fact, I see it the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you don't mean psychopaths Kevin? Your description doesn't seem to stack that well with sociopath.

 

Rule over load is worse then no rules at all. We are suffering rules overload big time which means people turn off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

km

Science (including genetics and medicine) still have a way to go with understanding personality differences.

 

DSM and ICD classifications differ and AFAIK DSM has a silly history going back to Freudian garbage.

 

So putting that aside, when I use the word "sociopath" I mean people who are skilled at manipulating others but have no empathy. I'd guess that lack of empathy may have a genetic basis.

 

I'm thinking too of the personaliy type described by Gordon Campbell a while ago about people who think in black and white and believe negotiation and politics is a zero-sum game and base their actions in the real world on the game Diplomacy. As Gordon wrote:

 

"Diplomacy is a classic strategy game based on pre-World War I Europe. Players assume the role of one of the era’s Great Powers and compete to control all of Europe. Like most games of its era, it’s zero-sum, where victory can only be gained by trampling over the corpses of your enemies. The catch is that there is no randomness – the game has very simple mechanics, which are completely deterministic. So you can’t rely on luck of the dice and gamble your way to victory. Instead, in order to win, you need to carefully build alliances, and then betray your former allies. It is therefore a game which rewards deceit and treachery – a training tool for sociopaths."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Science by its very definition will and can not ever know everything and it shouldn't.

 

I know what you mean but while both share a lot of similar traits I think psychopath fits better than sociopath. Sociopaths don't tend to be as organised as your suggesting, where psychopaths do. Sociopaths also tend to be loners with no real plan where psychopaths tend to be people persons who can schmooze the pants off you (fugitively speaking of course) as you'd expect from a diplomat or CEO and do it in a very well planned manner.

 

I'd be way more afraid of a psychopath than a sociopath. Most serial killers have psychopath leanings. It gives them a higher ability to disassociate themselves from their actions, something sociopaths can often struggle with as it's a learned disorder, where psychopaths are born that way.

 

At times I think both OSH and many CEO's would need a level of psychopath to get sh*t done.

 

But we digress.... carry on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it interesting that we (mostly) believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, and yet we don't allow that to continue? Part of societies and indeed the environment's problem is that there are too many people. Previously if someone couldn't use common sense, then evolution removed them from the gene pool to make the rest of a community/tribe stronger and smarter. Are individual failings more important than a positively evolving society?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IT - aren't you somewhat pessimistic?  Physics dictates that it will be self-equibrilating and at some point in the futre and the human population will evolve differently (perhaps devolve for a time) until some point where upon the planet can then sustain the newly evolved human population which can the go on to evolve, procreate and f*ck up the planet again.  We are merely testing the boundaries further then previouse plagues etc ever did!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...