It's not just the wellbeing and safety of students we need to consider, but the teachers too

As a profession - teachers, principals and support staff - we are extremely focused on the wellbeing and safety of our students.  We have extensive expectations, systems and processes in place to ensure the students in our schools are safe and if an incident were to happen, no matter how minor, it is documented, systems are improved or changed and dangers are rectifed.

But do we do the same for our staff?

In recent weeks there have been two big issues that impact the wellbeing and safety of school staff as well as students, and I have to question whether or not we are doing enough to keep teachers safe.

Firstly, it was reported last month that a number of Year 9 boys (that’s 13 year olds) at St Patrick’s College in Silverstream (Upper Hutt) had sexually harassed several female teachers.  The boys had apparently filmed the teachers in an inappropriate way without their knowledge and shared the footage.  This week it was revealed that the school had decided to keep the students within the school (after a short suspension) to ‘educate’ them, and that the female teachers had resigned.  See this article: Teachers resign from an Upper Hutt school after being sexually harassed by students (Stuff, 13 April 2017).

The other big story originated from Northland, where principal Pat Newman explained that P babies and children with other high behavioural needs were a danger to his staff as well as fellow students.  Principal Federation Chair Whetu Cormick echoed that this was indeed a problem around the country, more so in certain provinces than others, but still a nation wide issue.  See this article: Teachers kicked, punched, stabbed by disturbed ‘P kids’ (NZ Herald, 13 April 2017).

The implications of the sexual harassment of the teachers.  

I have seen the article above commented on in four forums on Facebook and on Twitter.  There have been a variety of comments.

I’ve mostly seen many supportive comments of the teachers and dismay at the actions of the boys and of the school.  The general consensus is that the school has made an unsafe workplace for the teachers by allowing the boys to stay within the school environment and a condonement of the actions of the boys has been implied.  It is intimated in the above linked article that the teachers have resigned and that legal action (a personal grievance perhaps) is being taken.  I am wondering where Worksafe fit into all this, because surely it does.

I did see the odd random comment asking about how the teachers were dressed to encourage the boys to behave in a disreputable manner.  Needless to say that commenter was well and truly informed about the professionalism of teachers and schools like St Patrick’s having a dress code along with condemnation for victim blaming.

I did see some comments commending the school on wanting to work with these young men to improve their understanding of what is acceptable or not.  But to prioritise the students over someone’s ability to earn an income and feel safe in their workplace?  I think the safety and wellbeing of the victim should have been the priority here, not the students.  They have parents to think about their safety and wellbeing as well as the school.  However, in this case, the principal and board should have prioritised the teachers.

And I say this because, as many commenters pointed out, if it had have been the teachers sexually harassing the students, the teachers would have been kicked to the curb, outted publicly and lost their jobs, with the support rightly being on the victims - the students.

You may remember the Losi Filipo controversy last year, the Wellington contracted rugby player who initially was given a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket after a vicious assault on four other young people…. Well, Filipo went to St Patrick's and one commenter said that St Patrick's had put their support in behind Filipo.

The classic Van Halen song,
'Hot for Teacher' does not apply
in this case.

Then there were the odd comments on “boys will be boys” and references to the Van Halen classic ‘Hot for Teacher’ were made.  Yes, “boys will be boys”, but that doesn’t mean we don’t call them out and make them take responsibility for their actions.  They need to learn that there are consequences for every action, good or not so good or just bad.  If we don’t, as a society we will continue to condone rape culture and sexist behaviour.  And yes, some boys will get crushes on some teachers, but this behaviour certainly is not indicative of a crush.

I did see another few commenters supporting the school’s stance, saying it is a very good school with a great culture, that you can not lay the responsibility of the actions of a few Year 9 boys only in their fourth week at the school on St Patrick’s culture.  But let’s just remember that this is the culture that Filipo was immersed in for five years.

And then there were some other commenters who sat on the fence, who felt there was more to the story and therefore they could not yet make an informed judgement.  Fair enough.  But don’t defend the school while you are sitting on that fence, because they do have the power to give out more information than they are… but they have a process to go through first.  We can only hope that when the process is completed the public are more informed.

Regardless of which commenter anyone is, the fact remains that the perpetrators of the unacceptable acts have been allowed to remain and it is the victims that feel they have to resign and leave.  That is unacceptable and it continues to allow the rape culture mentality that invades our society to keep bubbling away because the school has implied that the perpetrators’ rights are greater than the rights of the victims.


This comes form Employment NZ:  "Health and safety law requires that employees and others are given the highest level of protection from workplace health and safety risks, as is reasonably practicable. This includes risks to both physical and mental health."  Consequently St Patrick's in in violation of health and safety law they are required to uphold.

The leaders of St Patrick's have failed the standard as good employers and have now shown other schools how not to have the backs of your staff.

Children who can not control their behaviour and pose a danger to staff and students.

Pretty much every teacher will have had a student like this.  At some schools you may have classes with a lot more than one student like this.

I have personally had students that swore at and abused me, stormed out of class to go hiding somewhere or to leave the school, who have thrown chairs and desks, or have used sticks from the playground or metal bars they’ve acquired from out of bounds areas to threaten and attack other children.  I’ve seen children randomly physically attack other children.

What set them off?  It may be a disagreement over a playground game or an item in the classroom.  Someone might of said something nasty or looked at them the wrong way - or just looked at them.  They may be tired or stressed or under an influence of a substance from outside of school.  You may see it bubbling and try to avert it and, while sometimes you succeed, you fail and the kid blows.  Sometimes the eruption comes without warning.

I’ve had kids with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, ADHD, kids on the autism spectrum, kids with sensory issues, P babies, kids from homes with violence, kids who have suffered abuse, kids who are not handling a parental separation or have lost a parent or sibling to death, kids with conduct disorders, kids with low self-esteem, kids who are on ORS or should have ORS but don’t, kids who are frustrated due to learning difficulties, kids who just can’t make friends or form healthy social attachments, kids with anxiety…. All sorts of kids have "gone off" over my teaching career.

Sometimes my experiences have been very scary.  I had one child swinging a metal bar around like a taiaha and I had to lock my class in a room and go seek help.  Another time I had to, along with the principal, physically intervene to stop a student from hurting themselves and several others at great risk to our own safety.  Both these situations were incredibly scary.  I’ve had to sit on the floor and hug a child to me to keep him safe and calm in an assembly because the noise was too much to bare for him.  The unknown is when a child decides to leave the school grounds.  In a small school the conundrum is who will go after them, because who will supervise the other students?

And this then brings into question a teacher’s professional safety.  When is a teacher allowed to step into a situation and restrain or handle students to prevent them hurting themselves or others?  When should a teacher step back?  Who decides if a teacher went too far?  What if the teacher is condemned for not having done enough?

Last October the Ministry of Education released a document called Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint.  Within this document it says:

Physical restraint is a serious intervention. The emotional and physical impact on the student being restrained, and the person doing the restraining, can be significant. There are legal and reputational risks if a student is harmed.

Staff need to use their professional judgement when they decide whether to use physical restraint. They should consider their duty of care to students, their right to protect themselves and others from harm, and their obligation to act lawfully.

Physical restraint should only be used in emergency situations when the student’s behaviour poses an imminent danger of physical injury to themselves or others.

This is the basis I personally have always applied to these situations.  It is a common sense approach.  But teachers and principals feel the ground has shifted under their feet and do not trust their safety as professional if they have to restrain a student in the midst of a violent outburst.  See: 'It could jeopardise teacher safety' - concerns over new laws guiding when teachers can intervene in school fights (1news, 28 March 2017).

The Minister in a recent answer in Parliament Question Time advised schools to call the police to deal with violent students.  I question if the police would come or not.  They have their hands full dealing with mental health call outs because our mental health system can not cope with the demand on their overstretched services.  

This is from a transcript of Question Time on Thursday 6 April 2017, when New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin asked a question to Education Minister Hekia Parata:

1. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Ministry of Education's National Director for Learning Support that schools in Northland should contact the police when primary school children threaten teachers and other students with violence?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, I agree with the full quote that the ministry's National Director for Learning Support made and the context in which it was given. For the benefit of the House, he stated: "I would certainly see suspension as being a last resort. If we're talking about very violent behaviour, then that's a matter that schools need to be discussing with police." As per the Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint, released by the ministry in October last year, schools across the country should call the police in situations when a student cannot be managed safely and the imminent danger to students, staff, or themselves remains after all alternatives have been explored. As we expect in all situations, the police are the most appropriate people to deal with violence.

The Minister is correct in saying hat the Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint says the police should be called in situations when a student can not be managed safely and is a danger.  This is all it says:


In the event that incidents cannot be resolved quickly and where there is a sustained level of significant physical risk the police should be contacted.


In this press release from the Te Tai Tokerau Principals Association, A Cry from the Heart: lack of assistance for children’s needs, a principal states: “Last time I called the police to help in Kaitaia they told me very politely not to do it again. They took 2 hours to get here and the kid could have really hurt himself.”  So clearly the police are really not in a position to help schools deals with students who are a risk to themselves or others.


In the NZ Herald article, 'P babies' are now at primary school (13 April 2017), Principal Pat Newman says he is disappointed in the response from the Ministry over his claims that children in primary school are presenting with more violent behavioural problems now and that P is at epidemic levels.  Ministry of Education spokeswoman, Katrina Casey said on Radio New Zealand there was no hard evidence that schools were dealing with more children with behavioural problems.  Newman countered that with, "What evidence is needed? What is hard data? Do we have to wait until a child or teacher is seriously hurt? There is not one principal in New Zealand, and certainly not in Te Tai Tokerau, who is not telling the ministry that this is the reality.  In fact a few years ago we in Te Tai Tokerau, in partnership with the ministry, researched the levels of violence we were putting up with in the north, and the ministry has that information."


The article continues as follows:


Casey said the ministry spent about $95 million on behaviour assistance for about 10,000 children last year, and that number of children had not changed much in the last couple of years.


"If this is the case, why are we only receiving help to cover two hours a day on average for high-end behavioural needs? The answer is always that there is no more money available," Newman said.


"Why is there little help for psychological counselling for these children?
"Why does it take a year to get a foetal alcohol assessment done, and little funding to actually help the child once diagnosed?"


Casey had claimed that stand-downs and suspensions for assaults had remained static for the past six years, and a recent survey of secondary school teachers by the Council for Educational Research found student behaviour had become less of a problem.
Newman rejected that, too.


"We have severely abused children in our schools," he said.


"The ministry has the figure in Whangarei of the high behavioural needs children currently in early childhood education in this town who are due to come through the primary service, and it is huge."


What planet is the Ministry of Education on?


Clearly there is a disconnect between the Ministry of Education and the reality of what is happening in schools.


And Pat Newman is not a happy principal and I bet that he is not the only unhappy principal.


Personally, as a teacher, I am scathing.


I can tell you that there is not enough support for schools to help these children.  I can't remember when I last saw a any form of psychological counselling in a primary school.  The last time I saw a Ministry behavioural specialist was in 2006.  We can't even get a speech language therapist for the most needy children who can not speak properly.  And as for the Wrap Around Services Ms Parata crows about, well good luck ever seeing them!  I wrote about a young teenager who has fallen out of the system because it doesn't work in Where are those wrap around services, Hekia? last year.  Nothing has changed.


Everything that Ms Parata and her minion Ms Casey says is complete and utter BULLSHIT because at school level we never ever see them and children are falling through the cracks educationally because the Ministry of Education does not have the specialists we need to help these children.

This government is failing our most vulnerable students and their Predictive Risk Index to fund schools will do diddly bloody squat to change anything for these vulnerable children while there are no specialists in the Ministry of Education to support these children and no funding for schools to put programmes and support staff in place to ensure these children reach their potential.


This government, this Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, have failed the standard when it comes to our most vulnerable children.  And they are failing the classmates of these children and their teachers, support staff and principals as they are put in danger by these children for whom help is a mythological fantasy because the Ministry simply does not have the resources.



While Boards of Trustees are responsible for the health and safety of staff and students, they are being hamstrug by the Ministry of Education due to their lack of funding and support.

If only they had listened to those of us at the chalkface.  If only $359 million had been spent on the children where it would make the most difference instead of on that IES folly, Communities of Learning.






Acknowledgement:
The top picture regarding teacher wellbeing comes from this article:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/teacher-stress-needs-wellbeing-policies-daniela-falecki

Simon Bridges fails the standard



Several weeks ago, Simon Bridges, the Minister of Labour, announced he was making some changes to employment law.  He released a media statement on the 5th of June 2013, which I have included below as well:

 

Legislation to ensure more fairness, flexibility and clarity in employment law passed its first reading in Parliament.

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill proposes a package of measures to improve workplace arrangements in order to lift productivity and help create jobs.  
Labour Minister Simon Bridges told Parliament the Government wants to ensure that employers have the freedom to compete and expand, while key protections for employees are maintained.
The key features of the Bill are:
• The extension of flexible working arrangements so any employee, not just caregivers, can ask for flexible work.
• A return to the original position in the Employment Relations Act where the duty of good faith does not require the parties to conclude a collective agreement. Instead, the Employment Relations Authority may declare whether collective bargaining has concluded.
• Allowing employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining.
• Allowing for partial pay reductions in cases of partial strike action.
• Removing the 30-day rule that forces non-union members to take union terms and conditions.
• Changes to Part 6A so employers have greater certainty over the transfer of employees in certain industries such as cleaning, catering, orderly and laundry – if there is a restructuring or change in the contracted service provider. Small to medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 20 employees will also be exempt.
• Faster Employment Relations Authority processes.
• Greater clarity as to what confidential information employers are required to provide to affected workers in situations such as dismissal or redundancy.
• Requiring parties to provide notice of a strike or lock-out.
“I am especially keen to hear what affected parties have to say on the Part 6A proposals in the Bill, and will carefully consider their submissions and the recommendations of the Select Committee,” said Mr Bridges.
The Independent Taskforce on Health and Safety has recently made its recommendations to the Government, which are currently being considered.
“I want to signal my intention that, where desirable and practicable, this Bill will be the vehicle to implement any changes that need to be made to the employment relations regime as a result of the Government’s response to the Taskforce.
“Overall the proposed changes reflect a pragmatic approach to promoting flexibility and fairness in the labour market.”

 

On the 9th of June, Mr Bridges appeared on the TV1 political programme Q&A where he described his changes as "moderate, centre right law" over and over again.  When challenged by Corin Dann that the employment law was working, Bridges said that parts were unworkable or sloppy, creating problems, that we need more fair, flexible law that improves flexibility and profitability and will flow through to higher wages.  Corin pointed out that the changes would take away the rights to negotiate pay rises through collective bargaining, which Simon refuted by saying that collective bargaining was not fair for employers.  Simon Bridges claims that collective bargaining doesn't work, citing the Ports of Auckland dispute.  Corin pointed out that strikes have declined and are not so much of an issue in New Zealand anymore and asked how would low income workers be protected.  Simon Bridges again described these changes as moderate and pragmatic.

 

Simon Bridges became the Minister of Labour after Kate Wilkinson fell on her sword (finally) on November 5 2012 as a result of the Pike River inquiry (although Chris Finlayson held the position in the interim until John Key did his cabinet reshuffle in late January 2013).  Bridges also holds the portfolio of Energy and Resources.

 

Before Simon entered parliament as the electorate MP for Tauranga (replacing Bob 'The Builder' Clarkson in 2008) he was a lawyer, a Crown Prosecutor.  Considering Simon was a lawyer, you would expect him to know the law, be able to read it, understand it, apply it.

 

It appears not.

 

As you can see from the picture above, Simon Bridges has a poor understanding of one of the most basic tenets of the current legislation.  Pretty poor from a lawyer.

Simon Bridges wants to refuse new employees the right to 30 days to decide if they want to join the union.  Simon Bridges wants to give employers the right to pay new employees less or more with worse or better conditions than their unionised employees from the get go.  While this may be advantageous for the employees who are being paid better and are receiving better conditions, what about the (most likely more numerous) employees who will be worse off?

And why would you remove the requirement for good faith bargaining and allow employers opt out of multi-employer bargaining?  It certainly won't benefit employees or their relationships with their employers.  These changes are a tool to benefit employers only, to maximise their profits.

Before you say I am opposed to businesses making a profit, let me say that profits are important.  It demonstrates a successful business and that is a good thing for the owners/shareholders, employees, community and the country as a whole.  However, profits should not be made to the detriment of employees (their conditions, health and safety), the best interest of the community or country, or the environment, fauna and flora. 

New Zealand is a founding member of the International Labour Office (ILO).  Apparently, some of the above changes mooted are contradictory to our obligations under membership in the ILO.  Even his own officials told Mr Bridges that the amendments pertaining to employers opting out of collective bargaining contravened the ILO workers conventions that New Zealand subscribes to.  On June 4th, Simon Bridges told parliament in answer to a question from Darien Fenton during question time that he would discuss the changes with the ILO when he attended their conference later in June "with my new bestie Helen Kelly... and we'll be able to ask them then what they think".  However, he did not meet with the ILO in the end.  He refused to meet with them so he would not have to hear from the ILO directly how he was breaking the conventions.  The opposition has said that Simon Bridges effectively misled parliament, a very serious charge.

This is pretty typical of a National party minister.  As Helen Kelly put it, "Clearly this is a case of ‘hear no evil’"  Mind you, he has had some great role modelling.  Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata are infamous for throwing their toys out of their play pens when their officials tell them something they don't want to hear (probably why Novopay was such a botch up, because MOE officials couldn't tell them that Talent2 wasn't up to scratch), and Steven Joyce also isn't above throwing a wobbly either I've heard.

At this point (shock, horror) I am going to put up my hand as being a left-leaning, card-carrying unionist, who is involved in my industry union at branch and regional level, and gets to participate at a national level through the Annual Meeting.  I defend the right of the average person to belong to a union because I believe we would not have the standards we have in the work place today if it wasn't for workers uniting and standing up for fair pay, fair working hours and fair and safe working conditions.  I want to preserve the conditions we and others before us have fought for, and continue to strive for better conditions for workers that also allow for business and the public sector to strive for good.

One of the things that is not mentioned at the beginning of this blog is the intention to change the rules around meal and rest breaks.  The legislation covering this was brought in by Labour List MP Sue Moroney under Steve Chadwick's "Breaks and Infant Feeding Act" in 2008, and was enacted in 2009.  Prior to this Act there was no requirement under New Zealand employment law for meal and rest breaks, unless stipulated in each individual or collective employment agreement.  Under this Act, workplaces are required to do the following according to the Department of Labour:

Employees will be entitled to the following paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks:

• one paid 10-minute rest break if their work period is between two and four hours;
• one paid 10-minute rest break and one unpaid 30-minute meal break if their work period is between four and six hours;
• two paid 10-minute rest breaks and one unpaid 30-minute meal break if their work period is between six and eight hours.

If more than an eight hour period is worked, these requirements automatically extend to cover the additional hours on the same basis.

This link will take you to the page where the Department of Labour lists all the changes proposed, and the information about meal and rest breaks is on pages 12-13 of this PDF.

So why was the legislation for meal and rest work breaks introduced in 2008?

With the Employment Contracts Act in the 1990s the collective awards that previously covered most workers were swept away.... and consequently so were the stipulations for rest and meal breaks.  In the twenty or so years since, many young people and immigrants have joined the workforce in New Zealand.  The CTU says "The Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) report that largest number of calls and queries are from workers asking about meal break entitlements especially where small workplaces are not covered by collective agreements."  (CTU Submission to the Industrial Relations and Transport Select Committee ~ Employment Relations [Breaks and Infant Feeding] Amendment Bill ~  May 2008 page 7).

The fact that an Indian restaurant in Auckland has recently been exposed as paying its migrant workers less than $4 an hour for a 70 hour work week show that the company is willing to work their employees as slave labour by how they pay them... so what about their legal rights to meal and rest breaks?

These meal and rest breaks are also vital for health and safety reasons and for sustained productivity.  The following comes from page 6 of the 2008 CTU Submission:

8.2       In certain industries workers are exposed to greater health and safety risks.  Workers who work long working hours, who work shift work and who work at night have higher exposure to health and safety risks.

 

8.3       Rest breaks are also recognised as having a role in ensuing worker productivity. Research undertaken in a car plant in Swansea over a three year period found that the risk of accidents during the last half-hour of a two hour period of work, was double that for the first half-hour. The suggestion is that more frequent breaks could reduce accidents. It was concluded that increasing the frequency of rest breaks of workers who operate machinery could substantially reduce industrial accidents and that frequent work breaks (e.g. ten minutes every hour) can improve work performance[1].

---

[1] Working Time and Health: Fact Sheet, International Labour Office, Geneva, 2004.

Clearly, employees are there to ensure the employer makes money and a profit.  But no employer should profit at the expense of the health, safety and well being of their employees.

Yet New Zealand has a shocking workplace health and safety record.

Just two and a half years ago we lost 29 men to the explosion in the Pike River Mine.  As a nation we watched the West Coast go into full rescue mode... be pulled back for safety reasons.... and then have their hearts broken as a second explosion dashed all hopes.  The nation mourned with the West Coast as a memorial was televised live.  Personally I cried copious tears for the families.

Last year the inquiries demonstrated that systematic failures led to the deaths of the 29 men.  This is a simple outline:

• a lack of mine safety inspectors - there were two for the whole country.
• deregulation of the mining industry.
• a lack of mining industry specific regulations.
• use of non-company contractors within the Pike River workplace to cut costs.
• poor safety training by the company - particularly for the contractors.
• modifications to equipment that monitors gas levels so work onsite could continue.
• lack of safety gear within the mine.
• lack of exits from the mine.
• pressure from management to carry on work despite gas readings.
• a culture of "she'll be right" within the company.

There was that quiet pressure from the top of the company to compromise the health and safety of the workers because they wanted the top quality coal out to make money.

The company was convicted in April for the deaths of the 29 men.  This last week the sentencing was handed down.  The families of the those who died, as well as Daniel Rockhouse, who survived, read or submitted their victim impact statements.  These men were sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, uncles, nephews, cousins, sweethearts.... their families have been devastated, their lives have altered course immeasurably due to a company that did not value health and safety or the lives of their employees and contractors. 

Judge Jane Farish ordered that Pike River Mine Company pay each survivor and the 29 families $110,000 compensation each, or $3.41 million in total.  She also fined the company $360,000 over nine health and safety employment charges.  The company says it does not have the money to pay.  It estimates it can give $5,000 per family.

Is an employee's life worth only $5,000?

Since the Pike River disaster there has been a call for a law to be implemented to allow a company to be charged for corporate manslaughter in the advent of a workplace death.  Simon Bridges should soon be announcing a decision about this possibility  Personal liability for directors has also been called for.  A strengthening of the laws governing mining are also on the table.

In the meantime, Simon Bridges has introduced some guidelines to make mining safer.  They do not change the law and have no legal force.  These guidelines recommend directors provide a clear job description for the chief executive, which includes health and safety responsibilities, and to conduct management performance reviews.  Yip-bloody-pee!!

But we have another industry in New Zealand where we have lost the equivalent number of workers - 30 in six years - forestry.

On Wednesday night TV3's 3rd Degree broadcast a story about the conditions forestry workers work and die in.  Guyon Espinor went to work with the forestry workers, talked to a widow of a forester, parents of a forester, the CTU and the industry leaders.

Forestry has always been a dangerous industry.  Men have died throughout the history of clearing forests.  However, in today's modern world we should be able to minimalise the chance of death or injury. 

There are an average of 330 accidents per year.  Four foresters have died this year alone.... so far.  50% of foresters work longer than 40 hours a week and 10% work longer than 60 hours a week.  There is no cap on the number of hours a forester can work in a week.  The code of practice merely says that workers are entitled to “regular rest breaks, a meal break and a daily or nightly sleep period”.  They risk injury or death for about $20 an hour on average.

The CTU are leading a campaign to make forestry a safer industry.

  

Ken Callow was killed in October 2011 in the Wharerata Forest south of Gibson when a pine tree fell and crushed him.  He was a father of two young sons.  The official report into his death says he was "the architect of his own demise".  The parents of Ken Callow do not want to apportion blame, however they do ask one question: why are so many of our young men being killed or seriously injured in the forestry industry?

What is truly scary though is that the Department of Labour holds no true and correct record of the number of deaths in the forestry sector.  "Shane Philip Frater, 28, died on 1 May 2009 in a forestry block near Te Pohue, off the Napier-Taupo Rd, when he was hit by a branch of a tree as it slid down a hillside.  “Despite the Department of Labour carrying out the investigation it now has no record on its database of this forestry death, or record of his death in the statistics for forestry deaths in 2009, raising questions about how many other Forest fatalities are not recorded,” Helen Kelly said."
 
The CTU, families and industry leaders are calling for an inquiry into why so many foresters die on the job.

Yet Simon Bridges doesn't think that we need an inquiry.  He reckons he has got enough reports and that he has a "strong sense of what the solutions are".

So how does Simon fail the standard?  Let me catalogue the ways:

• Simon wants to end the requirement for employers to bargain in good faith - big fail there Simon, as that merely creates a wedge between employers and employees.
• Simon want to allow employers to bow out of multi-employer bargaining - big fail here too Simon.
• Simon refuses to hear his officials and the ILO and the CTU when they all say his legislation contravenes the conventions New Zealand is signed up to under the ILO - that is a major fail and demonstrates a flagrant disregard to workers rights by New Zealand internationally.
• Simon is removing the requirements for rest and meal times - another epic fail as studies have shown that productivity is higher when workers receive regular work and meal breaks, and that health and safety statistics are more likely to be on the positive side of the ledger.
• Simon's guidelines for directors of mining companies have no teeth whatsoever - another fail.
• Simon's refusal to have an inquiry into the health and safety of forestry workers is another fail.

Simon would do well to remember he is the Minister of Labour, not the Minister of Employers.   He is there to ensure that the Department of Labour enforces the law of the land on how businesses operate and how their employees are trained, paid, and treated.

You're not there to ensure some rich fat cat gets richer or fatter Simon!!!  Consequently, you fail the standard.  Big time.

Thanks for reading through to the end.  This post has taken several weeks to compile and events overtook my initial thoughts (e.g. Pike River and the forestry issue) so I felt compelled to include those issues too.  I know it was a long blog.... but I hope it was food for thought.