From the Hi-Viz Won't Save You Files...

Posts: 477
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: Meanwhile, in Tasmania

Postby AdelaidePeter » Thu Oct 25, 2018 9:01 pm

fat and old wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote: while the road worker's employer was fined $250,000. I'm sure the employer deserved it.

Based on what?

Because such large fines are so rare, it must have been pretty bad. But I don't care if I'm wrong on that point; that's not my concern. I'm concerned about the light sentence to the driver.

fat and old
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: From the Hi-Viz Won't Save You Files...

Postby fat and old » Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:03 am

I know of a workcover rort...back "injury".....that netted the fella $487,000. That was considered to be a good outcome for the employer, in spite of the video evidence and testimony of spies, friends and fellow workers that the bloke had no issues carrying on an active, sporting lifestyle post "injury". I'm aware of how Altus and other larger T/M companies work (and more importantly how the employees/contractors work), and to be honest while I shouldn't be surprised by the outcome, I am....

But yeah, it's things like this that lead to many wondering how to link worksite OH&S outcomes to everyday cycling.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users