Thread: Safety frustration at the mens shed

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Contact work cover and ask them to send an inspector around and tell him to go to town on them and threaten to shut it down if they don't comply or better still, shut it down untill they have done an accredited safety course, its their welfare your looking after. you can also get people who have been disabled as a result of industrial malpractice to visit the shed, works a treat

Many Mens Sheds are full of people who already ARE disabled. Given that half of those disabilities may not be visible. For many in more Rural or non large metro areas you will be standing next to someone who has contemplated suicide once, or a number of times. That's been MY experience of men's sheds in Rural Australia. Your ideology seems to be a little out of touch with the nature of these places - or - it's different where you are. I don't know about that.
The scare tactics will probably not have the desired results. For a lot of people these places have been a life saver, and they would take it a lot more seriously. In the end I suppose only being banned might be the only way to stop people, but man, make sure you give them an in-road back in - otherwise it's full circle.
I've watched people doing all sorts of stuff as tradies. This strikes me as no difference in practice, except there is no comp in any way - which we all know.

Thank you for your comments togril and they have cut closer to the bone than you would care to hear......

"

Many Mens Sheds are full of people who already ARE disabled."

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Thank you for your comments togril and they have cut closer to the bone than you would care to hear......

Given the increasing awareness and acceptance of mental illness in the general community and the goals of the Mens Shed (MS) movement it certainly is a very challenging area to manage, however at least in MS's there is more and open awareness of mental health issues.

My experience has been in an incorporated association NOT linked to the MS movement and about the time the MS movement started to gain momentum. Many "mainstream" clubs face exactly the same issues managing the wide range of members attitudes, backgrounds etc and certainly have many members who have experienced mental health issues in their lifetime. I've been there myself through worked related SAD.

However there is no excuse for and should never be acceptance of the behaviour of a clique of members who openly and blatantly challenge / refuse to comply with basic safety policy; or their attempts to undermine the normal functions of such a beneficial environment.

I have experienced assisting members with acquired brain injuries and other MH issues to turn, its challenging but very rewarding to watch them move forward, but it requires significant human resources to function well.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

.....However there is no excuse for and should never be acceptance of the behaviour of a clique of members who openly and blatantly challenge / refuse to comply with basic safety policy; or their attempts to undermine the normal functions of such a beneficial environment. ........

Hi Mobyturns

I am not a member of the nearby MS - too much politics - but a group of friends have effectively converted my shed into an "unofficial men's shed".

One of my best friends, a retired fitter and turner who also worked as a builder, has, in my view, a very cavalier attitude to safety, and he has 50+ years of commercial workshop experience and has seen some very nasty "accidents".

He is often referred to as DOC as in "Deaf Old C****", but denies there is any correlation between his deafness and industrial noise. He hates riving knives on saw benches - "they just get in the way" - declines to use hold downs, etc. "We never needed all that modern in my day......" It was very hard for me to put limits on what he can do in my shed on my limitted machinery. But almost all other friends agreed.

The situation must be even more difficult in a men's shed. The whole ethos is inclusion, the only real enforcement is exclusion....



Cheers

Graeme

The situation must be even more difficult in a men's shed. The whole ethos is inclusion, the only real enforcement is exclusion....

Yep - that is a big part of the problem.

My experience with disabled members was they were usually the most compliant in terms of safety. In the so called mens shed at the aged care facility where I volunteered for 18 months all of the members were disabled, mainly from strokes, with only two of the dozen or so members having two useful hands and some could only watch from wheelchairs. They were very restricted in what they could do but I don't recall a single complaint from them I think they were just glad to get away from their institutional care setting for an hour a week.

Same at the mens shed with the safety issues. The most safety compliant members are those with disabilities. We have a completely blind member who is able to work on his own with hand tools and has more sense than most of the rest put together. There is one disabled guy who's a tad on the cocky side in terms of safety but from what I could see these members represented the least of our safety problems. The most non-compliant are also not even usually wilfully so. They are mainly just forgetful types and because the other supervisors operate on the casual side they don't pick them up on safety issues so these members think they are doing just fine. Then on the day of the one week I came in and had to start handing around PPE or commenting on a dubious method or two I looked like an OHS nazi.

Originally Posted by rwbuild

Contact work cover and ask them to send an inspector around and tell him to go to town on them and threaten to shut it down if they don't comply or better still, shut it down untill they have done an accredited safety course, its their welfare your looking after.

a Work cover inspection should be an option, but because no one is "employed" or "contracted" by the typical Men's Shed work cover typically doesn't want to know as it's "outside" their jurisdiction.

Common sense risk management would suggest that certain safety procedures should be mandatory, but until there is a high profile death in a shed -- followed by a coronal inquest -- I fear that no one from officialdom will get involved.

Originally Posted by ian

a Work cover inspection should be an option, but because no one is "employed" or "contracted" by the typical Men's Shed work cover typically doesn't want to know as it's "outside" their jurisdiction.

Common sense risk management would suggest that certain safety procedures should be mandatory, but until there is a high profile death in a shed -- followed by a coronal inquest -- I fear that no one from officialdom will get involved.

That was not the case when a gymnast died in a Townsville club during a tumbling routine. Workcover conducted a investigation and achieved a successful prosecution $70k fine if my memory is correct.

Coronial inquest - http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/...m-20130412.pdf

News article - Gymnastics Townsville fined $70,000 over death - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

In NSW, AFAIK, a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking, is liable under the WH&S Act 2011 (NSW).

When the act was mooted, Surf Life Saving (NSW) clamped down on some of the more riskier activities, carrying 75Kg Outboard motors solo, etc, to mitigate their risk.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

That was not the case when a gymnast died in a Townsville club during a tumbling routine. Workcover conducted a investigation and achieved a successful prosecution $70k fine if my memory is correct.

You are correct.
But my point still stands.
The difference between the typical men's shed and Townsville Gymnastics is that -- to quote from the inquest -- "most of the coaches [at Townsville gym were] casual employees of the club."

It's the employment relationship which triggers (authorises?) work cover's involvement.
The typical men's shed has no employees and is "not carrying on a business".

There is still Public Liability though, and I presume that comes down to the owner of the premises - the user of the premises may be able to indemnify the owner, but I don't profess to be knowledgeable about such matters.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There is still Public Liability though, and I presume that comes down to the owner of the premises - the user of the premises may be able to indemnify the owner, but I don't profess to be knowledgeable about such matters.

Our shed is owned by the local council. They don't want to know what goes on inside the shed only what goes on outside the shed as this is where the "shed" interacts with the public.

Yes I think most of the properties are council owned. So say Joe Public walks in and something awful happens to him - for the sake of argument we assume it's not his fault. Who does he sue, and who pays up?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yes I think most of the properties are council owned. So say Joe Public walks in and something awful happens to him - for the sake of argument we assume it's not his fault. Who does he sue, and who pays up?

Most sheds will have public liability insurance. Whether they pay up is of course another matter.

Just want to add a little to the sops that were mentioned I have just been tasked with replacing sops in the school tech shop I work in as an SSO and after being taken to a meeting with the teachers to have the new rules regarding locking of all machines when not in use and other changes the group was asked who has a risk assessment folder some yes some blank looks some admitting stuff out of date. The advice given by the guy running the Training WAS if you have an accident first thing I am going to ask for is the risk assessment for that machine