Typhoon Season 2013

[Watercooler]

What law, regulation or precedent do you base this on? Specific pointers (wihtout idle speculation) would be best.

Once again, Captain Clueless strikes again. Idle speculation my ass:

http://www.labour.gov.hk/eng/public/wcp/Rainstorm.pdf

Employers’ duties
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance, employers have an obligation to
maintain a safe workplace for their employees.
Employers should avoid assigning workers to work in times of typhoons or rainstorms
wherever possible. Where employers require their employees to work in times of typhoons
or rainstorms, they should assess the associated risks to ensure that the risks at work
are properly controlled and reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. Their duties
include the provision and maintenance of safe plant and system of work. For example,
employees should be instructed to keep themselves away from dangerous places as
much as possible and be provided with suitable personal protective equipment such as
safety helmets, raincoats and waterproof safety boots. At the workplace where there is
a risk of persons falling from height, employees should be provided with suitable safety
measures, such as proper working platforms or, if this is not practicable, suitable fall
arresting systems, such as safety nets, safety harness and independent lifeline or other
secure point for anchoring the safety harness.
Employees’ obligation
Employees should co-operate with their employers or other persons so far as may be
necessary and follow the safety rules, instructions and work procedures.

[TheBrit]

You forgot to mention the part that those companies would be liable for any injuries sustain by their employees on their way to work (or at work-if their jobs require them to work outside) under a T8. That's why the vast majority of offices are shut during a T8. Insurance might not cover the employers during a T8, so they will have to pay out of their own pocket for liability issues.

What do you base your assertion that insurance might not cover this? Insurance might not cover many things, it doesn't automatically mean they become proscribed.

[HowardCoombs]

I see a lot of "should"s but no "must"s in that guideline which is neither law nor regulation.
Furthermore, the quotes you have produced are relating to at work situations and not travelling to work.

Care to try again, without idle speculation? Please justify how/when "companies would be liable for any injuries sustain by their employees on their way" by pointing out relevant laws & regulations.

[Watercooler]

What do you base your assertion that insurance might not cover this? Insurance might not cover many things, it doesn't automatically mean they become proscribed.

I said insurance may not, I did'nt say it will not. It depends on the particular scheme and conditions an individual firm sign up for.

[TheBrit]

I said insurance may not, I did'nt say it will not. It depends on the particular scheme and conditions an individual firm sign up for.

Makes your point worthless then.

[Claire ex-ax]

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_d...631&con_type=3

Superwoman dives to the rescue and what do the police ask???



FFS the waters wasnt that bad as all the moaners know

She was probably able to assess the situation better than an ordinary member of the general public.

But some people sadly jump in without assessing the situation but desperate attempt to help someone in need. I'm thinking of that expat who jumped into typhoon waters to save a couple of foolish kids some years ago. The kids were saved but the action cost the expat his life. I'm sorry I can't remember his name...

[Watercooler]

I see a lot of "should"s but no "must"s in that guideline which is neither law nor regulation.
Furthermore, the quotes you have produced are relating to at work situations and not travelling to work.

Care to try again, without idle speculation? Please justify how/when "companies would be liable for any injuries sustain by their employees on their way" by pointing out relevant laws & regulations.

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/legis/ord/282/s5.html

Cap 282 s 5 Employer's liability for compensation for death or incapacity resulting from accident
(e) an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee while he is driving or operating any means of transport arranged or provided by or on behalf of his employer or by some other person pursuant to arrangements made with his employer between his place of residence and his place of work, travelling by a direct route-
(i) to his place of work for the purposes of and in connection with his employment; or
(ii) to his place of residence after attending to those purposes;
(f) an accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment if it happens to the employee when, within the duration of a gale warning, or of a rainstorm warning, he is travelling between his place of residence and his place of work- (Amended 24 of 2000 s. 2)
(i) to his place of work, by a direct route within a period of 4 hours before the time of commencement of his working hours for that day or to his place of residence, within a period of 4 hours after the time of cessation of his working hours for that day, as the case may be; or

[Watercooler]

Makes your point worthless then.

No, you don't know why kind of insurance each particular company has. Some have typhoon provisions. Some do not. Or are you telling me you know what kind of insurance every single HK company has?

[TheBrit]

HC, WC is correct on his assertion the employer is liable to pay for compensation should an employee be injured while traveling to work under typhoon conditions. This has been discussed on Geoexpat before.

An accident to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of
employment if it happens to the employee when he is travelling from his place of
residence to his place of work by a direct route within a period of four hours before the
time of commencement of his working hours for that day, or from his place of work to
his place of residence within a period of four hours after the time of cessation of his
working hours for that day, when Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 or above or a Red
or Black Rainstorm Warning is in force. Under these circumstances, the employer is
liable to pay the employee compensation under the Employees’ Compensation
Ordinance.
Take an employee whose working hours ended at 5:30 p.m. as an example. He met with
an accident and sustained an injury at 7:00 p.m. when he was travelling back home from
his workplace. Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 was in force at the time of the accident.
In the circumstances, his employer will be liable to pay him compensation under the
Employees’ Compensation Ordinance

[Claire ex-ax]

And a heads up to the Flying Services officers who lifted 21 seamen off that sinking bulk carrier yesterday!