Antiseptic,

For the record, Telstra is no longer "highly unionised". A large proportion of their technical staff are labor-hire contractors or still working under AWAs that were renewed just weeks before the cut-off date.

Safety is given a very high priority within the Corporation as a matter of policy and is not driven by the Unions.

I don't know what safety training FoxTel employees are given but the majority of satellite installers are contractors operating as private companies - like plumbers and electricians.

Other than technical training and accreditation, absolutely no safety training is provided by the companies they contract to. It's a personal responsibility. Contractors are only obliged to carry Public Liability Insurance - not individual personal coverage.

The mandatory use of personal harnesses while working on roofs was introduced as an industrial requirement only a few years ago and nothing to do with any union or company directive.

Shadow
>"Fixating that labor can do no wrong"< .....Bollocks! Sorry mate, what both of us seem to be saying that if it came to the spouse of one of the deceased suing, they would sue the homeowner or the employer/supervisor maybe the purveyor of the dodgy product,depending on specific circumstances.

To hold Garret personally responsible at this stage is unsupportable and politically motivated.
You me Abbott or the man in the moon has no idea what contrary advice he was given, what investigations he put into train etc.

There is merely circumstantial evidence , at best, of bureaucratic bad decisions. As the minister, he has potentially political responsibility for the department, to go the next step is simply a bridge too far at the moment.

So if you don't mind I wait for real evidence before digging in my shed for a rope or a firing squad.

I would point out that everyone including a minister of the crown needs to be proven guilty in this country first before execution. damn it!

Despite opposition's hypercritical political chant "We love the smell of a ministerial lynching in the morning".

Finally bureaucratic cock ups are usually the flaws anyway. Disasters are usually a confluence of several factors.

Ex,

With all due respect, the insulation program has very specific standards and requirements that the contractors have to meet in order to be able to claim the subsidy.

The contactors were not in any position to change the material or installaton methods, which is why the electrical union approached the minister responsible to get the standards changed.

That they representation from the electrician's union, and a similar thing occurred in NZ two years ago (to which he was alerted) should have been more than just a wake up call.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/15/2819613.htm

Having documented evidence of what can happen, and an expert body reafirming it, would require extraordinary evidence by another reputable body to the contrary, that what ever caused the deaths previously had been rectified.

There is no evidence that Garrett had any such "super" solution to justify his reckless and deadly decision to maintain the status quo, which he alone had the power to do so.

The evidence that it was unsafe was available a year ago, and Garrett has yet to show anything to the contrary.

Under the OH&S act one has to show that one took all reasonable measures to provide a safe work place. Garrett did the opposite.

Shadow Minister: "Having documented evidence of what can happen, and an expert body reafirming it, would require extraordinary evidence by another reputable body to the contrary, that what ever caused the deaths previously had been rectified."

Would "no fatalities in 50 years of installing foil into roofs" quality as "extraordinary evidence"? I suspect it would.

Despite the ruckus here, fatalities on building sites are not exactly unheard of. There is roughly one a week, on average. So not having any in 50 years is pretty good, suggesting the installation of foil installation is a pretty safe process when done correctly. Banning it is a bit of a over reaction.

Obviously the industry had developed some pretty robust OH&S safety practices over the years, and evidently they haven't been codified so they are passed onto newcomers. The right reaction now that there is some evidence of that is to codify them.

Your propensity to hurl accusations and abuse at Labour at every opportunity gets tiresome at times Shadow. You aren't a one issue man. You are a one eyed man, and you have that eye firmly fixed on the left side of politics looking for any excuse to throw the next salvo. I still find myself wondering at times if you aren't a paid part of the liberal party flak machine.

TAPP A HUGE difference exists between a union official and a delegate, you should know that.
No union can compel contractors to do anything, mostly they are fire, unions water.
Antiseptic, you should read,,,understand,,, others posts I am no CFMEU supporter, believe me.
You must never have worked with your hands, only your post is more lost than rechtubs.
Do you understand telecoms usually works at floor level not in the roof?
Training has ALWAYS been of great concern, not just here but the workplace at large.
Soon I leave home after one hours break, I did the same last night.
I will conduct inspections of night road work.
Dangerous badly lite and sign posted jobs, the boss, very much like you, uninformed and unaware of his duty's will swear and abuse me ,but his crews will go home in the morning.
TAPP your attempts to thrash me because my union/Labor views are not your dysfunctional ones is evidence My view of you need not change get well.

wobbles:"Other than technical training and accreditation, absolutely no safety training is provided by the companies they contract to."

If that is the case today, then things have changed a great deal. When I first started as a sub-contractor to optus, Optus operated a facitlity at Acacia Ridge in Brisbane that included a mock-up house and was designed to give novice installers a comprehensive suite of safety and work practice training.

When I moved to Telstra, the head contractor was required to provide job safety training and did so via regular briefings and supervisory visits. Job safety analysis forms were required to be completed prior to any work being done and could be asked for at any time. Safety and job-specific gear was inspected by Telstra regularly.

As you say, sadety harnesses/lanyards became mandatory for roof work some time later, after there was a death due to a fall and had been mandatory for pole work the whole time.

My point was, however, that as you have pointed out, this was not because of the union. When the union was asked to be involved, it ran a mile.

In this case, the unions were involved from the start and look at the outcome.

Sadly, the unions have become little more than platforms for would-be Labor members to build a profile.