According to Jim

CSA Occupational Health and Safety Training in Canada

04/30/2013 12:00:00

For those responsible for the delivery of training to security workers, here's the Canadian Safety Association's new national standard for OHS Training. The private security industry has no work to do it's been done for us.

CSA Z1001 – Occupational Health and Safety Training

Providing adequate training to employees is a critical element of risk management and can help promote health & safety on the job. Each year, many organizations in Canada make significant investments in providing safety training to workers yet often have difficulty ensuring that it meets their needs.

To help organizations invest limited training resources effectively, CSA Z1001 - Occupational Health and Safety Training, provides the essentials of managing a health and safety training program and a method to recognize OHS training practices. The standard helps organizations identify their training needs, set their requirements and select training products and services that will effectively meet their requirements. It also helps organizations work with training providers to ensure that OHS training courses are designed, developed, and delivered with appropriate input and expertise.

Z1001 is part of CSA Group’s portfolio of OHS Management Systems Standards, based on the foundation established by Z1000 - Occupational Health and Safety Management.
Highlights of Z1001 Include:
Requirements for management and administration of OHS training and guidance on identifying OHS training needs
Guidance on developing, implementing and maintaining appropriate OHS training program and courses
Guidance on selecting training providers with appropriate qualifications
Informative Annexes on how to implement the requirements of the standard
Valuable samples of a training matrix, course evaluation form, and training assessment surveys.

And on top of this, there's also the Law. You folks in Ontario are facing an MOL "Blitz" on safety in numerous industries, including security. It's kinda a "pay me now or pay me later" conumdrum.

Simple isn't.

Property Owners must be prepared.

04/27/2013 10:57:00

Robert Baden-Powell - Be Prepared... the meaning of the motto is that a scout must prepare himself by previous thinking out and practicing how to act on any accident or emergency so that he is never taken by surprise.

Question: Who is responsible for ensuring that security officers are appropriately vetted and trained for emergencies?

Answer: Ultimately, the property owner (possessor). There is no wiggle room on this. It is the same in the U.S. and Canada

Could the bombing in Boston been prevented? Not likely! It is one of those incidents that are hard to imagine much less predict or prevent.

Here we are, it has happened and now is the time to learn from it for the future. The tragedy in Boston should be driving home to property owners and those responsible for public and worker safety that duty of care must be demonstrated in order to use due diligence as a legal defense.

Keep in mind that, I am not a lawyer. I train security professionals.

Whatever the emergency is: fire evacuation, bomb threat, natural disaster, or manmade incident (crime i.e. active shooter, assault, civil demonstration...) as a property owner, you are responsible for the safety of visitors and workers while they are on your property. It makes no difference whether you are utilizing proprietary or contract security personnel on your property, you must ensure they are trained in all aspects of safety and security and their training must be documented.

In the U.S. “Premises liability means a landowner’s liability for certain torts that take place on an immovable property.

Premises liability law refers to the set of laws that make an owner or possessor of land or premises responsible for certain injuries suffered by persons who are present on the premises.” http://premisesliability.uslegal.com/

Emergency management law in the US is rooted in all three levels of government—federal, state, and local. While all three types of legal responsibility may result in liability, the most likely source is state law, specifically the tort concept known as negligence. Another frequent cause of liability is the failure to comply with a legal duty, such as OSHA law. A violation of law may be used as proof in a civil suit requesting damages for personal injury or wrongful death. When the elements of the violation are the same as the elements required for civil liability and the burden of proof is the same for both, the only issue in a civil trial may be the measure of damages.

In Canada – The “Occupiers Liability Act” explains an

3 (1) An occupier of premises owes a duty to take that care that in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a person, and the person's property, on the premises, and property on the premises of a person, whether or not that person personally enters on the premises, will be reasonably safe in using the premises.

(2) The duty of care referred to in subsection (1) applies in relation to the

(a) condition of the premises,

(b) activities on the premises, or

Another example of Canadian law is found in section 32.2 of the British Columbia OHS Regulations stipulates “Evacuation and Rescue Training

(1) Workers (security professionals) designated to provide rescue or evacuation must be adequately trained.

(2) The training program must include simulated rescue or evacuation exercises and regular retraining, and training records must be kept.

Here are five reasons why you should integrate exercising into your emergency management program: 1. Apply your training. Exercises, like tabletops and full-scales, are some of the best ways to simulate emergencies to better prepare employees for the real event.

2. Identify important training and skills gaps. You may think you have covered all your bases with your training program, but is a real emergency the right time to put that to the test. Run drills, tabletop, or full scale exercises to help identify gaps in your training program, and roles that require more skills training.

3. Develop the right skills to manage complex and stressful incidents. Reading about how to respond to or support an incident does not cut it; however, simulating a real-life event with specificity having various inputs and emergency details thrown at the trainee is a much stronger training experience.

4. Pinpoint resource needs. Are there enough workstations at your Emergency Operations Centre? Do you have enough security officers to effectively evacuate the building? A training and exercise program will help identify missing resources, so you can make sure you have everything you need should a real event or disaster occur.

5. Better, engage your team and improve learning. Is your team just going through the motions with your training program or are they engaged and active participants? Integrate a functional exercise to get your team out of their seats and engaged in learning.

The result is a more effective response when an incident occurs.

In an emergency people, not effectively trained can shutdown or become irrational because they are overwhelmed. In Boston the immediate incident response came from people who were trained in the military and they defaulted to their training. Effective repetitive training will condition the trainee to avoid or control the “amygdala highjack”, or fight or flight response.

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF NEGLIGENT SECURITY ISSUES Foreseeability is the traditional basis of liability. A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct. This duty is applicable to all types of business where you have business invitees: retailers, condominium associations, apartments, hotels, restaurants, bars, malls, anywhere you find security officers.

Definitions:

Duty of care – a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.

Foreseeable - The facility to perceive, know in advance, or reasonably anticipate that damage or injury will probably ensue from acts or omissions. (Based on security and safety hazard and risk assessments)

Negligence - Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.

Standard of care - the watchfulness, attention, caution, and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then his/her acts fail to meet the duty of care, which all people (supposedly) have toward others. Failure to meet the standard is negligence, and any damages resulting there from may be claimed in a lawsuit by the injured party. The problem is that the "standard" is often a subjective issue upon which reasonable people can differ.

Due Diligence- the conduct that a reasonable man or woman will exercise in a particular situation, in looking out for the safety of others. If one uses due care then an injured party cannot prove negligence. This is one of those nebulous standards by which negligence is tested. Each juror has to determine what a "reasonable" man or woman would do.

Amygdala Hijack - Daniel Goleman in his 1996 book Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ - responses from people which are immediate and overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat. I have not even come close to scratching the surface of what must be done in regards to training security workers to protect people, property, and assets of the property possessor.

Other considerations include but are not limited to:

Selection/hiring

· Job/Task analysis

· Safety & Security Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessments

· Job descriptions

· Supervision

· Competency Based Training

· Training outcomes

· Training evaluations

Question: Who is going to pay for doing all this?

Answer: Well... Who is going pay for not doing this?

References: NEGLIGENT SECURITY: WHEN IS CRIME YOUR PROBLEM? http://www.thefederation.org/documents/7.%20Negligent%20Security.pdf

West Fertilizer Plant's Hazards Eluded Regulators for Nearly 30 Years http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/west-fertilizer_n_3134202.html

RUN. HIDE. FIGHT. Surviving an Active Shooter Event - English http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0

Canadian Legal Information Institute http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/laws/stat/ccsm-c-o8/latest/ccsm-c-o8.html

The Evolution of the Private Security Industry in Canada

04/18/2013 11:45:00

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/01/15/policing-private-security-industry.html?goback=.gde_3775024_member_233347250

At my age, I have the experience to understand the phrase "what goes around, comes around." This discussion, to one degree or another, has been going on since the 70/80's and probably before that. And, yes, policing costs were a major topic of concern back then. Those costs concerns were addressed/reduced by civilianizing sections of the police organizations such as; records, communications, admin, etc higher paid position - and of course, popularized by CIS TV programs. Senior admin and operational support positions were, more often than not, filled by retired coppers. One must remember, however, the police were always in control.

Now we’re taking about private security taking over some police functions - actually, this has been going on for years - but who's going to be in control? The police want the, inevitable, evolution to be controlled by the police and, I think, they have an excellent argument.

Suffice to say, the private security industry in Canada, and everywhere else - exception may be the U.K., lacks the maturity to be self-regulating. There is no way the security industry can evolve, to the degree it must, in time to face the challenges that will go with taking on more public police responsibilities - at least, not in my lifetime.

The private security industry is driven by profit not public service. Oh! The industry wants to be seen as community focused, but it's about profit. Private security will cut cost that negatively influence profit margin, that's what business is about. Businesses do not exist to loose money. Security industry businesses will not invest in their own evolution if the investment negatively impacts on the bottom-line. i.e. training and personnel development are looked on as grudge expenses. They argue they can't do it because they can't pass the costs onto the client. They're all scrapping for the 2 percent profit margin. That's their myopic reality. I think there are ROIs to be explored.

Ironically, the demand for higher security service delivery standards have to come from the client.

I am not a naysayer, I'm a pragmatist.

I think the police have a very enlightened perspective on the security industry and fully appreciate how the industry will evolve relative their own police organizational future.

Opportunities:

*The security industry in Canada needs a very strong government lobby voice a role that can be filled by active and retired coppers.

*Police can be very influential in enhancing the public image of the security industry.

*Police can influence the creation of a stronger accountability system for the security industry.

*Police can create higher selection and training standards.

*Police can educate and influence those industries and business that purchase security services. Higher security business operation standards mean higher security service delivery to clients and the public.

ETC.

Lets face it, retiring police members transition into higher levels of corporate management when they come into private security. Active police members transitioning to private security need to adopt a more positive and constructive influence on an industry that they'll enter before they retire; when they have the most clout and when the standard of service delivery is not undermined by a business bottom-line.

Grant Lecky, David Hyde, Dr. Karland others know, there does not need to be a change to the statutory control of the private security industry, there needs to be industry standards as set by the by the Standards Council of Canada and the Canadian Standards Association to support private security through its evolution.

It's about credibility.

Z1001-13 - Occupational health and safety training

04/09/2013 11:19:00

I think this information should be of interest/value to anyone that oversees security worker, whether as a client, employer or supervisor. In my opinion, it's an important document and will go along way in assisting organization achieve OHS due diligence. I've quoted the CSA's own description of the new Standard. American readers can refer to ANSI Z490-1.

Security workers must start taking responsibility for their own health & safey. You must not settle for OHS complacency.

If you are a security worker, bring it to your employers and supervisors attention.

"This is the first edition of CSA Z1001, Occupational health and safety training.

This Standard addresses the needs of an organization to provide consistent quality occupational health and safety (OHS) training for workers, managers, and supervisors, as well as for health and safety committees and representatives. ANSI Z490-1, Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health, and Environmental Training, was used as the seed document for the preparation of this Standard, with permission of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)."

http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/occupational-health-and-safety-management/z1001-13/invt/27035322013

Security Guard Attack in Nanaimo

04/08/2013 11:50:00

This Post is in response to an article in the Nanaimo Bulletin News,April 6th article -" Man suspected of break-ins, assault arrested"

This incident is generating a fair bit of discussion in both Canada and the U.S. because the safety of the security officers providing security for clients/employers is often a last thought. The usual lament, on the parts of employers, "is training is too expensive and if we start delivering safety training it will have to increase our billing rate and that will make us uncompetitive and our clients will go to a cheaper (low-ball) security company. Unfortunately, a lament with some accuracy.

It is true, all too often those that purchase security services, particularly when "security guards" are involved go for the cheapest, but this is a whole other story.

Security companies and clients forget the Workers Compensation Act and Regulations require workers receive safety training and employers must be compliant with the Law. Due Diligence must be met.

So I ask; Who's Protecting The Protectors? If not employers, then who?

I've asked WorksafeBC on more occasions than I can count why they are not directing more enforcement and education at the private security industry? Simply, security flies under the proverbial radar. I don't think WorksafeBC will react until they are faced with another Grant DePatie incident, which this incident could have been. Maybe the BC Federation of Labour should take up the issue of security worker safety as they did with the tragic death of DePatie. And we all know what transpired when that happened - WorksafeBC became motivated. We now have pay first at the gas pumps and look at the new OHS Regulations on Night Retail staff who work alone.

WorksafeBC stats show, consistently, security guards are ranked 4th highest when it comes to exposure to workplace violence - higher than police officers.

The security industry in BC is above the provincial average when it comes to injury to workers requiring time-off.

The litany of examples of unsafe work conditions is endless and the risks are well known to employers, clients, and the government yet nothing has been done or is even contemplated. At least, not until another security officer is killed on the job and maybe not even then.

Regarding the recent changes to Section 494 Canadian Criminal Code - which is a primary authority foundation for private security officers - Joanne Klineberg, Senior Counsel Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada stated:

"All arrest situations are unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Citizen should only, engage in defensive conduct or undertake arrest with extreme caution. Even more caution is necessary where arrests are not made at the site of the crime and are made some time after the crime is committed since there is a higher risk of mistaken identification of the suspect."

Back to the article: I'm thinking, when this kind of activity is known to be taking place and it has the potential to increase risks to security officers working alone, as was the case, that some kind of information be passed on to security companies to heighten the awareness of their security workers. I believe this could be done without compromising an investigation. I can't help but wonder if the attack on the security officer had gone real bad what recommendations would a coroner's inquest make? I can think of a few. Lets call this a "near miss" that requires an OHS Incident Investigation. Unfortunately, it will just be yet another security officer endangerment incident that gets swept under the carpet, which is the norm.

Matt Hayman, a security officer in Newfoundland/Labrador, in response to my LinkedIn post suggested "As employees of these "security" firms we have to take a stand against unsafe work habits and conditions."

Matt is so right - before we mourn the loss of another security officer.

Jim Foston - Nanaimo Resident and Security Officer - 604 538-4653

jim@thefostongroup.com

Incident - Security Officer attacked in Nanaimo BC

04/07/2013 12:46:00

Once you've read the incident, read my next 2 blogs for what the employer should do. Note: the due diligence self evaluation will encompass much more; including, Lone Worker protection.

About 4 days ago a security officer in Nanaimo BC, while working alone, a security officer interrupted a B&E in progress during the very early hours of the morning. He suffered non life-threatening injuries, fortunately, and is resting at home as I write. The fact that the injuries sustained were non life-threatening can only be attributed to LUCK, it could have been so much worse.
What OHS scrutiny do you think the employer (including the client) are going to be faced with?
Go to my webpage for answers www.thefostongroup.com
No news coverage of incident at this time.

Security Officer Attacked - Nanaimo BC

04/07/2013 12:40:00

Evaluate Your Liability for an Accident or Injury

Checklist for Analyzing Viability of a Due Diligence Defense Instructions: Fill out this questionnaire after an accident involving a serious injury or fatality. The purpose of the questionnaire is to help you evaluate your risks of liability in the event you are charged with an OHS violation in connection with the accident by determining the availability of a due diligence defence.

Definition: Due diligence means making reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the laws and prevent accidents.

A. Foreseeability Was it foreseeable that the accident/injury would happen?

Explanation: You are not liable for all accidents/injuries, only foreseeable ones. Foreseeable means you knew or should have known that the accident/injury would happen before it did. The purpose of this section is to help you determine if this particular accident/injury would be considered foreseeable.

1. Did you have actual knowledge of the hazard or condition that caused the accident?

______Yes ______No

Instructions: Check “Yes” if:

The Joint Health & Safety Committee or Health & Safety Representative warned you about the hazard

· A supervisor or worker warned you about the hazard

· An outside party like an engineer, consultant or government safety official warned you about the hazard

· The hazard came to your attention in some other way

2. Should you have known about the hazard or condition that caused the accident?

_____Yes _____No

Instructions: Check “Yes” if a reasonable person in your situation, knowing what you knew, would have recognized the existence of the hazard/condition and that it posed a danger, to wit:

· Industry standards recognize the hazard

· There had been previous incidents involving the hazard

Analysis: If you answered “NO” to both questions, it suggests that the accident/injury was not foreseeable and that you may not be liable. However, if you answered “YES” to either question, it suggests just the opposite and you need to proceed to Part B of the questionnaire.

B. Reasonable Efforts Did you make reasonable efforts to prevent the accident/injury?

_____Yes _____No

Explanation: You are not required to do everything and anything to prevent accidents – only to take reasonable precautions. This part of the questionnaire will help you evaluate if you did enough to satisfy this part of the due diligence standard.

1. Does your company have a written OHS Program?

_____Yes _____No

2. Does that written OHS Program address the particular hazard, including?

_____Yes _____No

Instructions: Check “Yes” only if ALL of the following are included;

· Steps to remove and it

· The creation and implementation of safe work procedures

· Specific training and instruction regarding the hazard

· Supervision of workers exposed to the hazard

3. Is your written OHS Program actively monitored and enforced?

_____Yes _____No

4. Were policy, procedures, standards and best practices followed?

_____Yes _____No

5. Was the accident/injury the Worker’s own fault?

_____Yes _____No

Instructions: Check “Yes” only if;

· The accident wouldn’t have happened if the worker had followed the safety rules and/or properly used the safety equipment provided, and

· You didn’t know or have any reason to suspect that the worker wouldn’t follow the safety rules or properly use the safety equipment

Analysis: You’re unlikely to be able to show that you made reasonable efforts if you answered “No” to any of the questions 1 to 5. C.

Documentation If you answered “Yes” to both questions “A” and “B” above, do you have written documentation to support it?

_____yes _____No

Analysis: If you answered “B” to this question, you have little to no chance to being able to prove due diligence.

The Canadian Law of Workplace Violence

04/07/2013 09:22:00

The Canadian Law of Workplace Violence Every Canadian jurisdiction requires employers to safeguard workers against workplace violence. They just don't do it all the same way. Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan list specific steps. Federal Labour law says employers must take "prescribed steps" to guard against violence in the workplace without describing what those steps are. The other provinces and territories interpret their General Duty Clauses-the provision requiring employers to take reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable risks-as covering the risk of workplace violence.

ALBERTAWorkplace Violence Regulation. Occupational Health & Safety Code, Part 27: Sec. 389. Hazard Assessment Sec. 390. Policy & Procedures Sec. 391. Instruction of Workers Sec. 392. Response to Incidents

BRITISH COLUMBIAWorkplace Violence Regulation. Occupational Health & Safety Regulation, Part 4: Sec. 4.27. Definitions Sec. 4.28. Risk Assessment Sec. 4.29. Procedures & Policies Sec. 4.30. Instruction of Workers Sec. 4.31. Advice to Consult Physicians

FEDERALEmployer Duty. Canada Labour Code, Section 125(z.16), requires employers to: Take the prescribed steps to prevent and protect against violence in the workplace

MANITOBAGeneral Duty Clause. Workplace Safety & Health Act,Section 4(1)(a)

NEW BRUNSWICKGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 9(1)(a)

NEWFOUNDLANDGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 4

NORTHWEST TERRITORIESGeneral Duty Clause. Safety Act, Section 4(1)(b)

NOVA SCOTIAGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 13(1)(a)

NUNAVUTGeneral Duty Clause. Safety Act, Section 4(b)

ONTARIOGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 25(2)(h)

PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 12(1)(a)

QUEBECGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 51

SASKATCHEWANGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Regulation, Part III Sec. 37

YUKONGeneral Duty Clause. Occupational Health & Safety Act,Section 3(1)

Analysis: 7 Ways Employers Can Be Liable for Incidents of Workplace Violence

OHS Law Violation. The OHS laws of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan expressly require employers to protect against workplace violence. Quebec bans psychological harassment. The other provinces impose a general duty on employers to take all reasonable precautions to protect employees.

Vicarious Liability. A worker who engages in workplace violence might be considered an agent of the employer for whom the employer is legally responsible.

Negligence. If the person who engages in violence had a criminal record or violent background, the employer might be found negligent for hiring him. If the violent person acted violently on the job before but didn't get properly disciplined, the employer might be found negligent for retaining him on the payroll.

Breach of Contract. Some courts believe that employers have an implied contract to treat workers with respect and dignity so they can do their job. A victim of workplace violence might be able to claim that an employer violated this contract.

Human Rights Violation. If victims of violence are members of a minority protected by the Human Rights law, such as a woman, Muslim or Asian, they might be able to claim that the employer's failure to protect them against violence was illegal discrimination.

Infliction of Mental Distress. If the complained-of conduct was outrageous, victims of workplace violence might be able to sue their employers for intentionally inflicting mental distress on them.

C-45. If the victim is killed or suffers bodily harm, the employer could be charged with criminal negligence for wanton or reckless failure to protect.

To Train or Not To Train An Ethical Legal Dilemma

03/26/2013 11:14:00

To Train or Not To TrainAn Ethical Legal Dilemma - By Jim Foston

QUESTION:

Is it the employer’s responsibility to train private security officers/guards on the limits of “use of force”?

ANSWER: Yes, and there are OSHA and Canadian health and safety compliance requirements that must be met...

EXPLANATION: The following information is directed to clients that contract for security services - aka employers (Direct Employers, HR Managers, Supervisors, and Workers). The act of arresting or detaining someone is rife with potential hazards and risks from a health and safety perspective, in addition to an exposure to criminal/civil liability.

“All arrests situations are unpredictable and potentially dangerous, Citizen (includes security officers) should only engage in defensive conduct or undertake arrests with extreme caution. Even more caution is necessary where arrests are not made at the scene of the crime and made some time after the crime is committed...” Joanne Klineberg, Senior Counsel ,Criminal Law Policy Section Department of Justice Canada.

In the USA “Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party...” Wikipedia It is important to note that OSHA generally does not prescribe safety training methods. It explains what information or training is necessary and leaves employers to work out the delivery details. This is a huge responsibility! OSHA has made it clear that simply providing safety training information isn’t enough. You’re also expected to ensure that such training and information is relevant, understandable, and understood by the workers who receive it.

In Canada Health and safety legislation and regulations are similar to those found in the USA, the employer must provide a safe workplace for workers.

However, in Canada the safety of security officers is now more complicated. Recent changes to the Canadian Criminal Code (11 Mar 2013) section 494.2 Citizen’s Power of Arrest – this is the Statute that security workers function under. The Statute is now referred to as The Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act and amends the Criminal Code to “enable a person who owns (or has lawful possession of) a property, or person authorized by them (the security officer(s)), to arrest, with a reasonable period of time, a person who has committed a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. It also amends the Criminal Code to simplify the provisions relating to the defences of property and those relating to the defences of persons.”

The embedded video will raise some questions within you, your answers are to be found through your own research. http://www.calgaryherald.com/story.html?id=8111952

Questions to consider:

If your are the owner/manager of a property with contracted or in-house security workers;

· Have you ensured all contracted security workers or in-house security workers have received

training to OHSA’s requirements?

· Is your security contractor exposing your company to health and safety violations?

· Have you examined the safety record of all contractors?

· Will you pay more for well-trained security workers?

· Would you be able to use “Due Diligence” as a legal defence?

If you are an employer:

· Will your security-training program meet OSHA requirements?

· Do you document all training?

· What will it cost?

· Can you pass training costs on to your clients?

· Do you have an active safety discipline policy in place?

· Are your supervisors effectively leading your security team?

· If your security worker is injured, will the injury be compensable?

· Would you be able to use “Due Diligence” as a legal defence?

If you are a security worker;

· Is your training serving you in the safe performance of duties?

· Do you know your Health & Safety rights and obligations?

References:

Safety Smart Compliance - http://compliance.safetysmart.com/compliance-center-safety-training

Safety Smart Compliance - http://compliance.safetysmart.com/articles-insight/laws-announcements/geography/osha/training-requirements-in-osha-standards-and-training-guidelines

Employers May Face Liability for Monitoring Employee

03/26/2013 10:50:00

http://macleodlawfirm.ca/employers/2013/03/does-monitoring-emails-breach-an-employees-right-to-privacy/#comment-1494

Does Monitoring Emails Breach an Employee’s Right to Privacy?By MacLeod Law Firm, March 25, 2013 9:25 amA New Right to Privacy – Employers May Face Liability for Monitoring Employees E-mailsToday, it is common for employees to browse the Internet and handle personal emails on their company computers and for employers to monitor this activity. Employers will need to think twice about this as a result of two important court decisions in 2012.