Workplace Accidents

Forestry and particularly logging is a dangerous industry and NZ union chiefs are asking for an inquiry after three deaths so far this year.

Safety and protective clothing was not cool when I was a young forest ranger trainee, and I recall sniggering at American cowboy movies when they wore gloves when handling barbed wire - 'bloody softies'!

There was a safety organisation, The Green Cross,  and we were required to attend coursed and receive certificates for a number of years. One of the films sticks still in my memory. A bulldozer was left with its hydraulics up. Children came to play on the machine and as one of the children crawled under the blade, another on the seat bumped the lever. There was an image of child's hands losing life.

For some reason the organisation faded away and the green cross has been used for other things from environmental, cannabis to child adoption.

Gradually it came about that safety equipment was introduced and became mandatory, and a  consciousness of safety was introduced. So standards now are very good - pressure from government organisations such as Occupational health and Safety & Accident Compensation Commission has helped ensure this as both organisations have teeth.

If we go back to the New Zealand Forest Service, there was an branch (excuse the pun) set up called 'Work Study'. The focus was not so much on safety, but quantify the work process and formulating efficient methods.

This was very good work and the main idea was to be able to set work targets to allow the payment of bonus payment for greater work output - but not at expense of safety.

Actual work content was measured (while working safely), allowance was made for slope, undergrowth, rest and toilet.

The bonus rate was an amount above the hourly rate depending of the percentage of target achieved. There was a disincentive in the rate paid for anything over 110% and if 120% was achieved, the there was an error in target setting or the workers were cutting corners that would need investigation because likely, safety was being compromised.

Work study was also used to set contract rates.

The process was to set the rate, and then call for tenders from contractors. The contractor chosen would be the nearest to the calculated contract price.  Low prices would mean the contractor would cut those corners - or employ less experienced workers - or they would go broke and broke contractors are no use to anybody. High prices meant the contractors were or were intending to ripping the forest off!

With the demise of the NZFS, so has the branch, of Work Study.

I have no idea of how prices are worked out these days but I have seen several workplaces that operate on contract but have nothing to base the cost on.

'Oh last time it was $40 per tonne - this block looks a bit easier so but fuel is more costly, so we will make it $43 per tonne.' There is no real quantifying going on.

I'm not suggesting this is the reason there are more accidents, but perhaps a contributor.

If it looks like a crew are going to lose money, they may need to work faster, of .for more hours.

The investment is greater and per day financial output is huge, and has to be recovered. The forest owners though have no have to work within an environment of fluctuating log prices.

Sometimes it is nigh on impossible to predict a rope breakage or when a log will roll down a hill. Bottom line is that forestry work is dangerous and workers need to be vigilant, contractors need to be paid adequately and log prices to be stable. As far as better workplace conditions are concerned: forests are a natural environment on a wide variety of terrains - not much can be done about that.