Yabby, of course we shouldn’t be requiring courses to be run for every possible machine or job in which there is some element of risk. We agree – there has got to be a balance with these sorts of things.

But again I’ll maintain that we cannot have a situation whereby people can just launch straight into serious work with machinery that they are not familiar with and have not received any significant level of instruction over. Basic operation and safety factors MUST be expressed by the instructor/employer. And it is patently obvious to me that if it was left up to the employer to do this, many wouldn’t.

So when it comes to operating complex and dangerous machinery, such as a mustering helicopter, lengthy and detailed training is needed. When it comes to the operation of a motor vehicle, basic training at least to normal licence level should be required, even if the person doesn’t actually have a licence when operating a vehicle on private property. When it comes to 4WD operation, again basic training over and above standard vehicle operation is necessary.

Things like ATVs, chainsaws, drills, lathes, etc need some level of basic instruction and safety awareness. And then the territory becomes murkier with simpler equipment.

I can’t see why on earth the law couldn’t be a whole lot tighter on all of this stuff, with the requirement for employers to show in writing that they have given basic instruction on all equipment, which then gets signed by the employee.

It is surely in the best interests of every employer to do this, and in the interests of every employee to receive this instruction and to sign off on it, only after the instruction has been delivered and understood.

This sort of stuff surely sits totally within the role of good management by employers, and surely does not detract from productivity. In fact, giving proper instruction surely aids productivity.

I can’t see any reason why regulations to ensure that this basic level of instruction is given shouldn’t be implemented and be accepted by all.

*So when it comes to operating complex and dangerous machinery, such as a mustering helicopter, lengthy and detailed training is needed.*

Well of course we should, to fly a helicopter you need a license
and to get it you need to be qualified, to drive a car, again you
need a license, you need to be qualified.

My point is, there should not be double standards here, which there
are.

* Things like ATVs, chainsaws, drills, lathes, etc need some level of basic instruction and safety awareness *

So Ludwig the handyman can go to Bunnings, buy any kind of dangerous
equipment and operate it free of any requirement for instructions,
other then his duty of care to himself.

Yet Ludwig the employee can drop that duty of care and blame it
all on his boss, if something goes wrong and he acts foolishly.

Don't you see the double standard here?

Yabby, I don’t see a double standard in your example.

If you purchase equipment at Bunnings or wherever and use it around your home without having a proper operational or safety understanding, then that is your business. The manufacturer has covered his backside by including instructions / safety information with the items. This effectively covers the retailer as well. So it is then entirely up to you to read those instructions and to take it very easy until you familiarise yourself with the machine or risk any consequences of not doing so. You can really only blame yourself if you just practice the old ‘she’ll be right’ ozzie mantra.

But if you do it as an employee, the operation of the equipment is not ONLY your concern. It’s yours and your employers. It is therefore necessary for all parties involved to ensure that correct operation and safety are practiced and understood….especially in the situation where if an accident occurs, the employee could blame his/her employer or viceversa.

“My point is, there should not be double standards here, which there are.”

The whole point of having a better regulatory regime is to eliminate or greatly reduce double standards and make it all the same for everyone as far as is practicable. Let’s reign in the cowboy operators who put their naïve employees under unnecessary risk by expecting them to learn how to use dangerous equipment on the job by themselves without any instruction, while under considerable pressure to get the job done quickly. Let’s bring them up to the same standard as that of responsible managers/employers.

Also, the sort of regulation that I am talking about here is a good middle-of-the-road approach between no regulation and often a lack of basic responsibility exercised by employers, and a situation where you’d need to get employees to do courses on the use of every damn thing.

It is a good balance, and NOT one that would be of a significant cost to companies or end up driving jobs offshore.

*The whole point of having a better regulatory regime is to eliminate or greatly reduce double standards and make it all the same for everyone as far as is practicable.*

Ludwig exactly. That is why, if Ludwig uses say a drill at work
or at play, Ludwig should apply the same common sense and reasonable
judgement. If Ludwig uses a 4wd at work or at play, the same
standards should apply. No double standards.

ludwig>>There is a lot of criticism expressed on OLO about the quality of government regulation of all sorts of laws,from the police to departments that administer environmental and water regulations and the like.>>

i never heard that one before[BUT I LIKE THE IDEA

[personally police should be doing all the policing,but not as revenue raising but public safty and well being of us the principles of the public weal[from consumer complaint,to evironmental,parking,dogs,health,finance,banking,any'crime'or potential injurous or dangerous threat[even a'craked'pavement;HE/she CAN'ORDER'TO BE FIXED[almost]IMEDIATLY;

you name it'anything'that has stolen your[our]time,health,saFTEY, possesions,[s]he can'order'rectified or'replaced'[anything that can hurt you or make you a victim]should be the duty of the'police'to get the right problem to the right person to'fix'it[a one'stop'shop]one cop takes it to the next level,now.

there are of course divergent levels of policing[your basic'cop'is like a first AID OFFICER [ANYTHING THREATENING OUR[THE PUBLIC,OR BUISNESS]SAFTY,THE COP CAN RECTIFY]imediatly

SO SAY A COP SEES YOU'driving'dangerously'[s]he'sends you for a road licence test[case closed]cop sees you with a bald tyre[or an unroadworthy vehicle[he arranges it towed away and or replaired or replaced[and'[s]he'creates the'debt[that goes to debt recovery if not repayed.

your homeless a'cop'can get you instant bed,you need money[or you will steal];he/she can arrange a'job'for you[just orders an'employer'to hire you[govt subsidises their pay]

cops need to be seen as serving us[if he/she suspects you did a crime,his job is to protect your rights
while you go through the process[a peace officer[not a policing persona,one who collects evidence[picks up rubbish[time/date stamped,and sent off for finger printing and dna[proving who was there before he was]

not only does the garbage get cleaned up,it makes us see this local protector on the beat as someone they can really call an honest cop[from giving kids a kick in the butt,to locking you up[accomidating you over night for minimal'cos'[and maximal safty

>>This involves all levels of government right across the country.>>
and across any juristiction[for'any'citizen[world wide[or any'tourist'on'terra-australis'estates[or juristictions owned or supervised by australian regulatory protecorat's

Alright, by way of clarification – you are talking about upholding the same standard at work or play. I’m talking about the same standard across all work environments.

Why should recreational activities be under the standard of regulation as work activities?

People do all sorts of high-risk recreational activities. If they use some of the same equipment in their recreation time as they use for work, and they use it in a riskier manner, well that’s their business, for as long as they are not going to affect innocent people and for as long as anyone else involved understands that there is a considerably heightened risk factor that encompasses the thrill factor, and that if they come unstuck, it is their own silly fault for being involved.

It might not be unreasonable to use a 4WD vehicle for some sort of bush-bashing or rally driving recreational activity, but it would be totally unreasonable to use it in the same manner for work.

It is totally different in the work environment.

At any rate Yabby, if you wanted to level the regulatory playing field for all activities in work and play, you’d have to allow a whole lot more risky activities to happen, or to be able to happen, at work. Or…you’d have to greatly increase restrictions on recreational activities to the point of knocking the excitement completely out of them. One or the other.

We want work environments to be as safe. But for many recreational activities, safety is not a primary concern, and indeed an element of risk that is considerably higher than for normal day to day activities is inherently present.

It is completely untenable to have the same level of regulation applying to work and play.

Let’s stick to the concept of a level playing field for work environments and drop the recreational bit.