Thread: Lathe safety (off topic prevention)

Originally Posted by Michael G

Risk assessments these days seem to be based on the idea that if there is even the slightest possibility of something happening you should prevent it.
Michael

Hi Michael,

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Simon

Hitting a solid object while travelling at 100kph will result in a 100% fatal death for a human... Yet government themselves allow with their blessing people to do just this enmasse resulting in approximately 2000 deaths a year plus tens of thousands of injuries a year.

It puts how important OHS really is in the eyes of people and government...

I have had my shirt catch in the feed screw of a my AL1000C many years ago... I did not notice it until it started getting tight.. The foot brake resulted in the stopping of the incident.... This would be rare to happen in industry as their lathes are much bigger and thus the aprons are much bigger and the operator usually stands behind the apron.. To me the biggest safety item a lathe should have is a foot switch/brake..

We are a risk averse community these days, and progression has slowed because of it..

I read somewhere a very very safety consious company with a vast bureaucratic culture on OHS was having trouble with increasing workplace accidents.... The fact was all the good employees they had got sick of the OHS crap they had to put up with and as such the company got left with only the less "talented" working for them, the less "talented" were more prone to having accidents regardless of how strict OHS was...

Originally Posted by simonl

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Employers have very little say when there are publications like these out there because the lawyers will pounce on that as evidence of what "best practice" is. In the case of leadscrew entanglement I think the likelihood of it happening are very low but if I removed them from a lathe I would be removing safety guarding (which in most places is a sackable offence). If something did happen then I would be gone for all money, even if the likelihood was 1 in 10 million of it occurring. (On the other hand if the guards had never been fitted and something happened it would probably be expressed as a "freak 1 in 10 million accident") In the case of work it would have been far better if a risk assessment was done first and it was concluded that the guarding was not necessary because of the use/ users/ type of work etc.

I certainly want to come home from work alive and wish the same for my co-workers, but have concerns when I see Safety-ist propaganda like this peddled because it means we are allowing individuals to not be responsible for their own well being as well as moving the workplace safety debate from the workplace into an office somewhere run by people who haven't got first hand experience on how equipment is operated.
The net result is things run the risk of becoming less safe as there is firstly an assumption that workers don't have to think as things have been made "safe" coupled with the occasional ridiculous measure that everyone sees as a joke/ stupid/ un-necessary, giving rise to worthwhile safety measures being given less consideration.

We had one at a previous employer - a "safety bulletin" was circulated around about an office worker who's chair had collapsed. Now reading between the lines the guy was overweight and it was a cheap chair. However, the recommendations were regular "chair inspections" and individuals who were above average weight should consult with their OH&S reps about suitable office furniture. Now knowing that, am I less likely or more likely to bother to read or take the next safety bulletin seriously?


Michael

Yes, OH&S is a very fine balancing act muddied and confussed by many individuals who either go too far, not enough or (in some cases) use it as a tool to gain industrial leverage.

A few weeks ago I got roped into the role of Health & safety rep at our work location. I'm yet to do the course (I'm enroled for later this year) but I am already finding it a fine line to tread. Some see the role as a way of getting stuck into management, I see it as a means of making sure staff and management find a sensible approach and solutions to any issues. To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

It's a fine line between being reasonable and being firm about safety.

Simon

Originally Posted by simonl

While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act,

Pretty sure they are these days.... Or at least they are now in Qld with the harmonised national OHS laws..

Originally Posted by .RC.

Light red, the colour of choice for the discerning man.

don't you mean "magenta"?

Originally Posted by simonl

Hi Michael,

my understanding is that it more hinges around the "usual" matrix of consequences versus the likelihood. So, WRT leadscrew entanglement, if the consequences of it happening are major injury or death AND the likelihood of it occuring are high then I would expect an employer to perhaps look into the heirachy of control measures to mitigate the risk of injury.

I agree that we have gotten over the top in some cases with OH&S, but everyone has the right to come home from work alive.

Simon

the key word is usually "ensure" -- in that the employer will "ensure" that the work place is safe.

"ensure" is a very tough standard to meet, and if you sit in a chair marked "go to gaol" if something really bad happens at work, you sometimes get ultra cautious.

Originally Posted by simonl

. . . .. To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

As a volunteer at RSL Care (high care aged retirement facility) for just one hour a week I have to abide by all OHS regs same as applies to their employees

I also had to do 4 hours training, one hour each of the following which included a 10 minute test for each one
1. Fire safety. This one is worth doing.
2: Lifting and manual handling, how to lift a cardboard box, "bend ze news"
3, Bio safety - how to wash your hands and not transfer germs
4. How to treat senior citizen and avoid getting sued for elder abuse.

I had done 1 and 2 before at my previous workplace but I had to do these again anyway

I'm not permitted to touch/assist a resident (I need to do another course for that) so I can't even help a resident even get up out of a chair

Originally Posted by BobL

As a volunteer at RSL Care (high care aged retirement facility) for just one hour a week I have to abide by all OHS regs same as applies to their employees

I also had to do 4 hours training, one hour each of the following which included a 10 minute test for each one
1. Fire safety. This one is worth doing.
2: Lifting and manual handling, how to lift a cardboard box, "bend ze news"
3, Bio safety - how to wash your hands and not transfer germs
4. How to treat senior citizen and avoid getting sued for elder abuse.

I had done 1 and 2 before at my previous workplace but I had to do these again anyway

I'm not permitted to touch/assist a resident (I need to do another course for that) so I can't even help a resident even get up out of a chair

Bob,
That's because the RSL is a PCBU and all volunteers are "workers" under the WHS legislation.

Originally Posted by simonl

........ To further complicate things, we also have a large volunteer workforce. While they are not recognised as employees under the OH&S act, they still need to be heard and so come to me with issues.

It's a fine line between being reasonable and being firm about safety.

Simon

OHS reps have clear cut responsibilities to consult with workers & the PCBU to have the PCBU implement "reasonably practicable" procedures - taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters. You also need to check out if "roping you into the role" complies with the act - safety reps must be elected by the "work group." There is also a 3 month window for the PCBU to provide the safety rep training after the request is made.

The way the legislation is written it defines a PCBU & "work" i.e. performing a task for a business or undertaking. There is no distinction about whether the task or "work" performed for a PCBU is by paid or unpaid individuals - volunteers. They are all "workers" under the legislation if the organization is deemed to be a PCBU (see below).

A couple of key terms for you -

Person conducting a business or undertaking(PCBU)A person conducting a business or undertaking(PCBU) is the main duty holder under the WHSAct. They are usually the employer and may be a partnership, company, unincorporated body or association, a sole trader, a government department or statutory authority. A volunteer organisation is a PCBU if it employs one or more paid workers.

Worker - A worker is a person who carries out work for a PCBU in any capacity, including as a volunteer.

The Qld Act defines (remember it is now national standardized legislation so all states will be similar.)

Worker - A person is a worker if the person carries out work in any capacity for a person conducting a business or undertaking, including work as — an employee, .... volunteer ...

Workplace - A workplace is a place where work is carried out for a business or undertaking ...."

The act states "A volunteer association does not conduct a business or undertaking for the purposes of this Act" however the nature of that exemption changes when the volunteer association "employs any person to carry out work for the volunteer association".

Not for profit associations and their "volunteer officers" are exposed to higher risk if they start "employing" staff and do not discharge their duties as a PCBU - i.e. paying a member on an hourly basis to conduct beginners classes; or similar. I left an Association over this very matter (paying a volunteer who then becomes a worker, the association becomes a PCBU etc.) and other health and safety issues that left me personally high & dry as an officer of the Association. I would never approve such payment/employment and personally could no longer trust fellow officers of that association.

In my opinion all "not for profit associations" and volunteer organisations should adopt the principles of hazard analysis and risk management and comply with work place legislation. By doing so they can clearly demonstrate due diligence in protecting their members and volunteers from harm and significantly reduce potential liability for both the association and its "volunteer officers." Morally officers of not for profits should ensure machinery is safe & that guards are in place and remain in place etc purely to protect their colleagues from harm.

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/...eers_Guide.pdf

http://volunteeringqld.org.au/web/do...volunteers.pdf

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/L.../WorkHSA11.pdf

Hope this assists you to understand how volunteers fit the "worker" definition under the act.

I understand what you are all saying regarding OH&S laws and the definition of "workers" however these are all state based laws. Originally Victoria were to change the laws to recognise ALL volunteers as workers from 1st Jan 2013 but CFA (my employer) argued that it would be impossible to implement in that time from for their 60,000 volunteers. So, it has been postphoned to another (yet to be determined) date. As such, the only volunteers who are represented by a HSR are volunteers who happen to volunteer at a station that has fulltime staff. Volunteers who are members of a 100% volunteer fire station do not and are not entitled to a HSR under current victorian law.

It's a backward approach and I can't wait for it to come into line with other states.

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/law-rights/...-the-workplace

When I say I was roped into it, I mean I was "encouraged" to allow myself to be nominated. I was hesitant since I had not fulfilled the role before but it looks like it's going to be an interesting experience.

Simon

OH&S is a joke in NSW , you can't go into a scrap metal yard and look for off cuts etc, but you can walk around a car wreckers with cars stacked up that could fall on you.

Originally Posted by Michael G

The most common issue I've seen with lathes is the chuck key being left in when the lathe is started. Now the easiest way to prevent that if you want to be technical about it is to have a holder for the key with an interlock on that will not allow the motor to power up without the key being in the socket.l

Hey you took my idea that I thought of when I did it...and it hurt

One of my gripes with my employer is they write up all these SOP's (standard operating procedures) and expect that they have fulfilled their responsibilities and put the responsibility but on their workers. Unfortunately sometimes they are just unworkable under certain circumstances.

Example: to enter a burning structure, we need minimum 4 personnel on the fireground. Two in breathing apparatus, a pump operater and an incident controller. Most would argue this is a minimum, it's far from optimal.

Yet our minimum manning on station is 3. So if we turn up to a structure fire at 3:00am and there are people reported missing, what are we expected to do? Tell them to hold therir breath, find a cool spot and wait for a volunteer who has BA quals. to turn up? No of course not, human nature dictates that we will do our best with what we have, so we ignore the SOP. Now lets just say that the roof collapses and we are injured, how convenient for the employer to say we should have waited and followed out SOP's!

Simon