What Has Work Safe BC Been Drinking?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 03:45 AM

If the discussionpaper produced by Work Safe BC on the matter of resource roads ever actually becomes policy, then somebody is sleeping at the switch. The discussion paper talks about classifying all resource roads as "workplaces" for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act. If it makes the cut, it will be a joy to see the first test go to court.

First and foremost how in the world did the provincial government allow WorkSafe BC to dream up the idea? Both the Minister of Forest and the Minister of Highways are residents of PG and they must know how impossible it would be enforce any such ruling by Work Safe BC.

Now let’s see, under the proposal, Forest Licensee’s would be called upon to effectively police the area for which they have the harvesting license. Seat belts, speeding, bad tires, drinking, overweight vehicles, etc.

Now think about it, first and foremost any attempt to try and enforce these laws without having proper authority under the government, (in other words, private companies) assuming the responsibility for laws along the small section of road they access for harvesting.

Then there is the matter of who lives along these roads, for example, recreation vehicles, reserves, mining (they don’t fall under the same legislation) farmers, lodge owners etc. Does the forest license holder try and prevent them from using the forestry road? Of course not, they have no authority.

Then there is the matter of the province being in control of over 40,000 kilometres of forestry roads in the province, how you get them to enforce a new act which flies in the face of already existing laws in the province will be an interesting test indeed!

Work Safe BC needs to get a phone call from a few ministers telling them just how silly this whole idea really is and the sooner the better.

I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s opinion.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 03:45 AM in Views by Ben Meisner

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: gus on April 13 2010 4:27 AM

A workplace is generally defined by the various provincial and state laws associated with WCBs as "as any location where a worker is performing his or her assigned work." This includes the “highway” in the case of workers who travel as part of their required duties.

A hotel room is a workplace for a person who cleans those rooms. A pub a workplace for a bartender. A private home is a workplace for a home care giver. A mall is a worklace for many different workers.

In fact, the norm is probably that a workplace is more than just that more often than not.

Do we know yet what possible draconian measures WorkSafeBC has in mind for the Forest Service Roads?

I know one thing is for sure, Forest Resource Roads are in major need to have a close look at them from the point of view of standard and duty of care for the safety of those using them, starting from their design and maintenance.

Is this new information? Why is this a surprise to anyone? The report on Resource Road Safety came out July 2009, almost a year ago, and can be downloaded here: http://www2.worksafebc.com/PDFs/forestry/ResourceRoads/finalReport_july09.pdf

It states quite clearly throughout the report, such as on page 7: "British Columbia's vast network of resource roads can be considered amongst the most hazardous, high-risk WORKPLACES in the province."

It goes on to say on page 15: "Resource Roads are Industrial Workplaces and Worksites"

It is about time that the CILA and others read that report, comprehend what it means to its members and begin taking their responsibility in helping to improve the safety of the workplace they participate in!!!

Posted by: lost it all on April 13 2010 7:17 AM

I had an accident involving another vehicle on a forest road a couple years back. ICBC deemed the accident 50/50, I asked the ICBC representative what I could have done differently to prevent this accident, ICBC refused to answer the question. The road was deemed too narrow therefore 50/50 fault, so no matter what happens on this road if I was in an accident involving another vehicle I would be at fault at least 50%. I called WorksafeBC as I thought I needed a workplace (forest road is the workplace for log haulers)where if I start work in the morning I can be 100% assured that if I do my job correctly that I can be 100% correct if something happens thru no fault of my own. Of course WorkplaceBC did nothing on my behalf and sided with ICBC.

Posted by: Loki on April 13 2010 8:22 AM

Designating forest and resource roads as workplaces, which they are defacto as noted by Gus,is first a formality, and second does not impart any onus to enforce laws by the stakeholder.

There are 2 arms of law enforcement that come into play here.

The RCMP primary mandate is public safety for urban areas.

The rural (resource) areas come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environments Conservation Officers.

Effectively they have about equal authority, depending on where they are at.

This "ruling" simply allows WCB to enforce their work place related regulations.

Posted by: gitterdun on April 13 2010 8:47 AM

The RCMP has jurisdiction on all roads. As well Ministry of Forests and Range can issue tickets. See http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/13396/1/speeding%20tickets%20on%20forest%20service%20road%20upheld

The roads don't need to be designated worksites for WCB to enforce the regulations. That argument would mean that all roads should be worksites bacause we have trucks, taxis, buses, etc on these roads.

Ministry of Forests just laid off 200 workers and is looking for a way to off-load any costs or responsibilities.

Posted by: downnotout on April 13 2010 9:42 AM

If a person is traveling on a forestry road on which he or his employer had no say in how it was built and gets injuried because the road was declared as unsafe to travel on after the accident who would be held responsible for making a person work in an unsafe work place?

Posted by: gus on April 13 2010 12:07 PM

Depends on who knew about it. It is a requirement to inspect a worksite and do a hazard assessment. It is the reponsibility of all parties using a workplace to report hazards, the worker as well as the employer.

Workers, as well as employers should be aware of what makes a worksite dangerous and act accordingly. Workers have the right and the duty to refuse unsafe work.

Posted by: gitterdun on April 13 2010 1:43 PM

That's like a trucker travelling to McBride in bad road conditions, you adjust your speed accordingly and if it is still unsafe, you don't go.

Worksafe BC SEC 26.79 Haul road standards:
Roads, bridges, elevated platforms, and other structures used by vehicles transporting workers, logs or other forest products in forestry operations must be constructed and maintained to a standard which will permit safe transit.

Currently a large body of regulations and Acts have jurisdiction over hauling and roads:
*Motor Vehicle Act – licensing (ICBC)
*WorkSafeBC's Regulation Part 26 – safety *MOFR Resource Road Legislation - forest roads
*National Safety Code
*Commercial Vehicle Safety & Enforcement Branch of the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure – public roads

Posted by: censored on April 13 2010 2:11 PM

There is of course a regulation that covers any and every single work related activity!

It's reg 2.2 General duty clause which declares all work must be done with undue hazard to any and all workers.

So if you don't think there is a worksafe regulation covering a specific, general or unique circumstance, you are sorely mistaken

Posted by: censored on April 13 2010 2:15 PM

Further it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure the health and safety of ALL their workers. If a worker gets hurt on a road the is the "workplace" of the worker the responsibility lies with the employer, the supervisor and the worker if they have not met their obligation of due diligence.

Posted by: commoner on April 13 2010 4:03 PM

If I understand this correctly, the new designation could force the owners of the forestry roads to maintain them or close them. On the otherhand, it could just be another way to collect fees from "stakeholders" to cover premiums. As per usual these sorts of recommendations don't actual resolve problems but create more bureaucracy.

Fix the roads and be done with it already. One doesn't NEED more regulation to accomplish that, surely?

Posted by: Eagleone on April 13 2010 4:22 PM

As stated above the roads are well covered by existing regulations and standards. To introduce new liabilities to the resource roads is a covert attempt to limit public access to the back country through the guise of WorksafeBC.

If an accident happens on a narrow piece of road, then its the fault of the users for not adjusting their driving behavior for the circumstances. These are access roads and not highways built to highway standards. If you are not willing to assume your own responsibilities than don't use the resource roads.

WorksafeBC should have their mandate limited to the truck or equipment being used by the worker, and leave road standards and regulations to the appropriate government agencies. WCB is there to insure against work accidents beyond the scope of the employer without creating new liabilities such as this that will create new liabilities for business and the public.

We are well on the way to a police state and we have lost enough already. Ben is right that this should be stopped in its tracks or soon all the resource roads will have gates on them and only those with keys will have access to the back country.

Posted by: woodchipper on April 13 2010 10:59 PM

I agree with Ben and Eagleone on this one.

Whatever happened with a persons drivers licence being the only qualification necesary to operate a vehicle?

Whenever a person gets behind the wheel and goes anywhere...you are travelling at your own risk... period.

Common sense and personal judgement VS state run dummyproofing via nazi type authoritarian/penalty systems.

We have plenty of RCMP,DOT and weight scales that aggressively persue and penalise (whenever possible) all licenced commercial vehicles. Why do we need another layer of policing?

Do we need to make working in industry so impractical and complicated that no one will risk the penalties attached to an endless amount of rules?

Since governments are not perfect in designing or maintaining roads either, perhaps the worksafe police should simply be converted to industry advisors. That would be a constructive way of actually improving and "working" together safely and efficently.

The way its going no one will get hurt at work because there won't be any workers or industry left who can afford all this.