Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 102599	2009-08-25 10:48:00	No Sky For This Guy.	Hitech (9024)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
804198	2009-08-25 22:10:00	20 years ago I remember that OSH (or whatever it was called back then) required safety cages above 12ft (or so, cant quite remember) in the warehouse I worked in. Dont see how a roof would be any different as to not require some sort of safety harness/cherry picker cage etc. I guess this makes ladders unusable in the workplace	sroby (11519)
804199	2009-08-26 02:37:00	My son used to work for City Aerials for a number of years. AFAIK it was not usual practice for them to wear safety harness's when installing on private houses. He used to tell some scary stories of high, steep pitched wet roofs, and high winds, cracking concrete tiles when walking over them etc :) I remember asking him about safety harnesses once, I can't remember what he replied......... They were virtually contractors, buying their own vans, ladders, tools, fittings, signal strength meters etc, and were paid a fixed price for an installation. There was very little money in it. Metla makes it sound easy, but I dont know how feasible or acceptable it is to fit various anchor points into peoples roofs, chimneys, or barge boards. If it became mandatory then who pays? Edit: Of course, Sky could provide all contractors with Sky Hooks ! I expect we will hear more during the court cases, it's the City Aerials case that will be of more interest than the Sky one, I'd have thought.	Terry Porritt (14)
804200	2009-08-26 02:49:00	A bit like blaming MacDonald's for making someone get fat because they ate their products :( :( Agree. Let's blame everyone except the clown who adhered to the national ethos of no personal responsibility.	allblack (6574)
804201	2009-08-26 02:55:00	Agree. Let's blame everyone except the clown who adhered to the national ethos of no personal responsibility. The problem with that is that may fix the actions of one person, While putting the responcibility on everyone from the principle down the individual gets everybody. The act states that everyone is responsible for a safe working environment, Including the person who fell, the person who sent him to do the work, and the persons/company the work is being done for. I believe in personal responsibility, In fact my methods are weighted in that direction to a massive degree as a single foolish move by an individual can cause instant death for many people, but they only way to make everyone act in the same manner is to bring it in as company policy and to have money riding on that action.IE-You are paid to do it the safe way.	Metla (12)
804202	2009-08-26 03:01:00	but they only way to make everyone act in the same manner is to bring it in as company policy Maybe, but if someone is stupid enough to put themselves in harm's way, will some words on a bit on company letterhead make any difference to that individual? But at the end of the day, the legislator's have gotta have something to do.	allblack (6574)
804203	2009-08-26 03:02:00	Metla makes it sound easy, but I dont know how feasible or acceptable it is to fit various anchor points into peoples roofs, chimneys, or barge boards. If it became mandatory then who pays? It is easy, Hell, setting up a rope takes less then 5 minutes, Figure 8 knot around an anchor (a van works well enough) Sling it over the roof, Climb ladder, attach ripe grab to rope. Attaching a single anchor point requires one bolt, And can also be installed in just a few minutes. bearing in mind the anchor is only needed within 2m of a drop, so you don't need them all over the roof, Just mount one near where the install is going to take place and restrain yourself with an adjustable lanyard. You can also get an anchor that just sits over the apex of the roof, lay your rope from that point down to the work position, attach rope grab and away you go, took less then a minute. Who pays?, who the hell pays when your dead? And its already mandatory, You have to manage risks, falling off a roof is a risk, People die from it every year. This court case and any others are to drive the point into the industry that ignores their obligations.	Metla (12)
804204	2009-08-26 03:05:00	Maybe, but if someone is stupid enough to put themselves in harm's way, will some words on a bit on company letterhead make any difference to that individual? But at the end of the day, the legislator's have gotta have something to do. Aye? Wearing a harness or being fired will make a difference, I have no idea what your referring to as far as the letterhead goes, Perhaps you could elaborate?	Metla (12)
804205	2009-08-26 03:11:00	Wearing a harness or being fired will make a difference Maybe. lol...'letterhead' = 'company policy'. The Neurofen are kicking in....the recommended dose is designed to be exceeded! :p	allblack (6574)
804206	2009-08-26 03:46:00	Then you have little concept of how hard OSH will/could hit them if you think Sky can issue a policy (after a conviction) and not follow it up. They have the ability to imprison the principle, and from what I have been told they are chomping at the bit to get that to happen. The belief is that if a company director is jailed for a death then every company in NZ will pull their socks up immediately.	Metla (12)
804207	2009-08-26 04:58:00	The belief is that if a company director is jailed for a death then every company in NZ will pull their socks up immediately. Under a Labour Government, maybe. Surely not under the Nats.	Zippity (58)
1 2 3 4 5