ACCforum: New Zealand Standard Classfication Of Occupations - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

New Zealand Standard Classfication Of Occupations Available for Download: 1.14Mb (PDF)

#1 User is offline   admin 

  • Administrator
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 194
  • Joined: 14-March 11

  Posted 15 September 2003 - 11:53 PM

New Zealand Standard Classfication of Occupations 1999 in PDF (Adobe Acrobat Reader) format. (Note: Right Click + Save Target As...' to save as file).

Comment: A very popular document from the old site.

NZ Standards Website page.

Attached File(s)


0

#2 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 02 December 2003 - 08:40 AM

An interesting observation .

I went for a Vocational Assesment and they nominated several jobs.

When the report was supplied, I noted alot of boxes were ticked under
each job description.

Recently I found another IP. with some of these same jobs.

While comparing these documents , it was noticed that they all had diferent
boxes ticked for the same job.

Is there a standard for these functions of each job [bending, twisting standing]etc
and if so, why are the assesers not complying with these standards.?

Nearly all jobs have a very selective set of 'needs' .

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
0

#3 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

  Posted 02 December 2003 - 03:06 PM

This is a very good point Greg,

The dilemma seems to be that occupational assessors will tell you that they are NOT medically qualified to say whether or not a claimant can "bend, twist, sit, stand, lift, stretch etc etc in the course of undertaking any given employment option, however despite this obvious incompetance they fill out their occupational assessment report stating that a claimant can undertake these various physical attributes when in fact they (the assessor) are legally incompetant to make such a finding (they openly admit this themselves). For this very reason their occupational assessments can be very misleading to the medical assessor (or very convenient) depending on who the medical assessor happens to be.

I believe that the ONLY competent employment options that can be put forward by an occupational assessor are employment options that MAY possibly qualify with the claimants Injury Status when taking into consideration the provisions of IPRC act 2001, section/s 103 or 105 as the case may be.

Whilst the above sections of legislation only exclude the claimant from the actual employment that he/she was engaged in at the date of accident, it should be blatantly obvious that the physical attributes of that pre-accident employment will automatically EXCLUDE any employment options that INCLUDE any of the phyical attributes of that pre-accident employment otherwise the claimant would not be incapaciated for employment under section 103 or 105 in the first place.

Occupational Assessors need to be held to account for the employment options that they submit into their reports, afterall these reports are supposedly to assist an accident victim back into some sort of ACHIEVABLE rehabilitation.

Claimants should question all aspects of their Occupational Assessment and only agree to employment options that are within their obvious capabilities. If the assessor insists on including any other forms of employment then the claimant should DEMAND a full explantion as to why the occupational assessor believes that they have the capacity to engage in any employment option which is under dispute.

Occupational Assessors should not be attempting to hide behind their obvious imcompetence by simple submitting a mutitude of employment options in the hope that one or two will stick. Each and every employment option will have its own set of physical attributes and if any one of these physical attributes are already present in the claimants incapacity under section/s 103 or 105 then those employment options are automatically excluded outright, otherwise as I have already mentioned the claimant would not be considered to be incapaciated in the first place.

Stand up for your rights and make these assessors (both occupational and medical) work within the confines of the legislation they are paid to administer.



Tipster007
0

#4 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 December 2003 - 05:29 PM

Tipster 007.

Please advise whether we are on the same line.

I talk about a vocational assesor , you talk about about Occupational Assesors'

Are these the same ? If not . What is the legal difference?
0

#5 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 05 December 2003 - 12:40 AM

greg, you guys are basically on the same page.The process is called vocational rehabilitation assessment(covered in sections 89 thru 96) and the process is also called vocational independence assessment (covered in sections 107 to 111) the process for both these is exactly the same, they are called different names cause they are supposedly used at different stages(but they don't abide by that), vocational rehabilitation assessment is to determine your rehabilitation needs(but of course we know what it is really used for) confusingly similar is vocational independence assessment, that is for working out if you can work now(which of course is exactly the same as the other)As i am sure you know.they involve 2 parts, the first part is the i.o.a hense occupational assessor and then the medical assessor.So the overall process(involving both occupational and medical assessments) is called vocational assessment , and the first part of this process is called the occupational assessment.
So being all proper and correct , when we go see the dickheads at career services or workbridge, that is called the occupational assessment part of the vocational assessment process.I have probably overexplained it, i hope you get my meaning .I am damn sure the case managers are unaware of the intended differences that these 2 assessment procedures are designed in the act for.The vocational rehabilitation assessment is supposed to help acc work out the types of rehabilitaion that is best for us, but they just use it to kick us off!!.The vocational independence assessment was actually designed to be used anytime acc saw fit to have a go at proving we can work.i.e to kick us off!! roamy
0

#6 User is offline   roamy 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 05 December 2003 - 01:33 AM

Tipster, totally excellent point dude, about occupational assessors, they think they are untouchable because the act says to disregard the actual injury.So they can merrily list 101 amazing jobs we can do based soley on our quals and experience.What most of them fail to acknowledge is that they are required to take into account what we say in the interview.It is in our best interests to make a bloody lot of comments about how all these jobs our happy assessor is advocating for us, are totally unrealistic.Of course they will say not relevant, bla bla, but the fact remains they must include it in the report, and it is then on file and then the medical assessor can see it .I reckon one of the many reasons this whole assessment thing is going badly for us , is that when the medical assessor reads all these jobs that occupational assessor says we can do, the doc feels like he is almost obliged to agree with it, like it has allready been decided so the doc better not dissagree with it, this ignores the fact that the jobs have not been evaluated in light of our injuries..These are the sort of subtle design characteristics that are very cunning and planned and occur throughout the whole act.

I think it is impossible to overestimate the power and importance of this assessment procedure, it is decimating the injured people from the fairly compensated.It is the nuclear warhead of acc.We must fight this any and every way we can find.Once we have been through both i.o.a and i.m.a our goose is very close to being cooked!

At one of my many initial occupational assessments, i kicked up so much shit and dissagreed with nearly everything the assessor said, not because i was stirring, but because it was a pack of lies and i will be stuffed if i will sit back and watch some snotty little 23 year old get brownie points and $500 by shafting me onto the sickness benefit.On one other occasion, i was expected to attend this bullshit 3 day course with workbridge, i rung up the day before and said i cannot make it due to my injury, got my doctors support.If you cannot sit for 30 minutes without pain , you cannot do 8 hours a day with workbridge.Fight the mongrels people, at every turn.Don't worry about lifting your head up to be shot at, you are allready being shot at if your are injured and selected for occupational assessment.One other occasion they tried it on again, this time i went to a lawyer and filed for review, i know this can be a difficult thing because of this whole when is a decision not a decision thing, but if you can do it then try it.I say these things not to show my battle scars, but to encourage you , if you are injured and unable to work, do everything you can to halt the i.o.a and i.m.a , i am not referring to all specialist treatment or assessments(some of these are genuine) but to the i.oa and i.m.a, it is easier to not do it in the first place, than to try and undo another couple of corrupt assessments.The act does have some things we can use(like how they must take into account what we say)learn what these things are BEFORE you go to assessment, not after, prepare prepare.My lawyer said he wished people would come to him before the assessment procedure not after, grant him his wish folks.roamy
0

#7 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 05 December 2003 - 01:53 PM

Hi again Greg,

I think Roamy has probably covered your question.

In short Vocational Assessor is both Occupational Assessor (for the types of employment options to be given consideration) and then the Medical Assessor (who determines whether or not you are physically capable of engaging in any of those employment options on a full-time basis).

This process is called or known as the Vocational Assessment Process of your IRP.
0

#8 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 05 December 2003 - 07:13 PM

'Achieveable Rehabilitation'
Where can I find a discription of this statement.?

Not needed a legal , but for a an IP. :rolleyes:
0

#9 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

  Posted 07 December 2003 - 01:31 PM

The purpose of REHABILITATION (which obviously must include achievable rehabilitation) must address ALL ASPECTS of the claimant's Physical, Physiological, Vocational and Social needs whilst having regard for the limitations imposed upon those needs by the claimant's injury status (permanent disability).
0

#10 User is offline   Down 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 25 March 2004 - 08:17 AM

Is this the updated version ... ;)

This information was originally developed from Statistics New Zealand’s “Standard Classification of Occupations 1999”. in PDF (Adobe Acrobat Reader) format

http://www.acc.org.n...ces/worksheets/
0

#11 User is offline   Tipster007 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 28-October 03

Posted 25 March 2004 - 04:59 PM

:) :D :( :(

Not sure about that Down???????????

Mine is hopefully the CORRECT INTERPRETATION to be taken from the legislative provisions of IPRC ACT 2001, s.103 (earners - potential earners) and s.105 (non earners - potential earners). After all common sense SHOULD prevail as it's not rocket science.

The fore runner to this current legislation is found under AI Act 1998, s.85 (earners - potential earners) and S.87 (non earners - potential earners).

As was the case, the wording included in s.85 (3) 'engage in EVERY part of every such employment' has been silenced or limited ( left out all together) in the wording under current legislation at s.103, however dispite that wording being missing it then falls to common sense to acertain that a claimant that can not currently do each and every part of any employment option put forward, must be found to be INCAPACITATED for any such employment option. Once again it's just common sense really and if the ACC, Occupational Assessors, and Medical Assessors are going to overlook that common sense then they must do so at their own peril.

It is very clear that the District Court is not impressed with how the Corporation implemented the former the Work Capacity Assessment Procedure (THE CULL), which subsequently and luckily for claimant's saw large numbers of these assessments legally overturned at review/appeal which resulted in the full reinstatement of those claimant's weekly compensation payments and reimbursement of backdated arrears. If the Corporation now under a new set of legislation wish to continue to impose these same unreasonable expectations on claimant's employment capabilities under the current Inital Assessment Process and the Vocational Independence Assessment Process, then they surely risk repeating the errors of their past mistakes all over again and most likely with the exact same result from the review/appeal processess who will once again be required to tidy up the entire situation and force the ACC to comply with its own legislation.

Tipster007
0

#12 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 03 April 2004 - 09:23 AM

Work Type Detail Sheet'

41311 Stock Clerk.

These details from the ACC site use the wording'likely and unlikely'
Am I correct to assume these replace 'Wholely and Substaintually' as
has been used in the past. Is there any legal definitions out yet for these?
0

#13 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2005 - 03:35 PM

I raise these points for discussion please;

Is there a standard set of "Classification of Occupations" ACC. use?.
Are all ACC. providers required to follow this guideline?

The problem arraises when an IOA. and IMOA. ACC Provider are not using the
the same guides/classifications.

To follow the box diagram from CPANZ., allowing
different standards and values, proves not to be in the
interests of the Claimant.

I believe that at least 4 versions are in circulation now, therefore
it would seem that the IP. must first question which standards/etc.,
they are to be tested by and by which sets will be used to write the
report?. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
0

#14 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

  Posted 04 August 2005 - 04:02 PM

My observations of the ACC worksheets selected by the ACC and issued to the occupational assessors is that they are related to the New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations, the definitive document.

The ACC version of occupations removes important information such as required skill, experience and qualification. The ACC then place into the worksheets information such as their opinion and doubt bending twisting lifting etc, presumably to provide some traction for medical assessors.

The ACC appeared to distance themselves from task activities for which a person needs to be skilled experienced and qualified. Instead the Corporation would prefer vocational and medical assessors to use a very broad paintbrush.

I mean guess.
No I don't mean guess I mean instigating a conspiracy to produce a false document.

At this point I think I should roll out my new word.

REHABILABELISATION

Perhaps some of you wordsmiths could engineer a better word.

The point is the ACC are relabelling instead of rehabilitating hence Rehabilabelisation.

Producing a document to reconfigure a liability or pecuniary advantage is a crime in New Zealand now and as fraud. It is not the ACC logo that is committing fraud it is individual employees. Part of obtaining clear grounds for prosecution in fraud cases is the awareness that the activity is illegal. To be certain senior staff are very much aware that the fruitage from the REHABILABELISATION process is criminal.

The trick is the senior staff have divided up the responsibilities between many people so as each party may not be aware that they are doing wrong. However since when was ignorance and excuse.

I don't think there is one single document that Hitler would have seen in regards to the extermination of invalids in wartime Europe. Out of 6000 staff in the main death camp only 30 were prosecuted successfully.

Be afraid, be very afraid.
0

#15 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2005 - 04:17 PM

Thanx Have you heard of "Career Service" a Canadian group
that use a "Blue Book" for Classfication of standards.

This is not ACC. Version ////
0

#16 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2005 - 04:24 PM

ACC. providers are using this Blue Book as their Classification of Standards
which is so different from what you quoted is being used. CPANZ. is on
the provider letterhead.
0

#17 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 11 July 2008 - 09:40 PM

Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. 2006 12200_2006.pdf(10MB)
0

#18 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 11 July 2008 - 11:35 PM

View Postfreefallnz, on Jul 11 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. 2006 12200_2006.pdf(10MB)

I have heard from a reliable source that The above (Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. 2006 is now the de facto document used for job classification as it was a consultive collaboration between Australian and New Zealand parties of interest.

From whatIi've seen of it, it seems to do a better job match than the old system, but time and possibly reviews and legal challenges may change the landscape somewhat, who knows?
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 July 2008 - 01:55 PM

Medwyn it is not the defacto document but the document authority from which all occupational assessors must rely. When this document disagrees with the job sheet the ACC for the occupational assessors the occupational assessor must rely upon the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations and put aside the ACC paperwork. Remember that the occupational assessment must be independent from the ACC and rely upon authoritative information.

The ANZSCO information is based on the international standards and for New Zealand and Australia the refining or localising information is extracted initially from the census. From there the census taker contributing towards this document has heavy involvement with all of the different occupational groups, employment organisations, unions and New Zealand Qualification Authority etc.

The ANZSCO is simply the starting point to describe an occupation and not the end point as the ACC assesses have frequently led the judiciary to believe, which is frequently the foundation to fraudulent document is being produced in New Zealand for the pecuniary advantage of the ACC.To properly determine any particular occupation the ANZSCO information must be built upon by describing each and every physical and mental task activity of the occupation so as the medical assessor has sufficient information to form an opinion. What is currently happening is the occupational assessor is finding a job title and leaving it to the medical assessor to understand what that job means. This makes the medical assessor and occupational assessor which of course is wrong.

ANZSCO is a skill-based classification used to classify all occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets.
To do this, ANZSCO identifies a set of occupations covering all jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets, defines these occupations according to their attributes and groups them on the basis of their similarity into successively broader categories for statistical and other types of analysis. The individual objects classified in ANZSCO are
jobs.

In ANZSCO, occupations are organised into progressively larger groups on the basis of their similarities in terms of both skill level and skill specialisation. The conceptual model adopted for ANZSCO uses a combination of skill level and skill specialisation as criteria to design major groups which are meaningful and useful for most purposes. The eight major groups are formed by grouping together sub-major groups using aspects of both skill level and skill specialisation. In designing the major groups, intuitive appeal and usefulness in both statistical and administrative applications were also important considerations.

The skill level criterion is applied as rigorously as possible at the second level of the classification, the sub-major group level, together with a finer application of skill specialisation than that applied at the major group level. Each sub-major group is made up of a number of minor groups.

Minor groups are distinguished from each other mainly on the basis of a finer application of skill specialisation than that applied at the sub-major group level. Within minor groups, unit groups are distinguished from each other on the basis of skill specialisation and, where necessary, skill level.

The structure of ANZSCO has five hierarchical levels - major group, sub-major group, minor group, unit group and occupation. The categories at the most detailed level of the classification are termed 'occupations'. These are grouped together to form 'unit groups',
which in turn are grouped into 'minor groups'. Minor groups are aggregated to form 'sub-major groups' which in turn are aggregated at the highest level to form 'major groups'. These are the same hierarchical levels that are used in ASCO Second Edition and NZSCO
1999.

The scope of ANZSCO is all occupations and jobs in the Australian and New Zealand labour markets undertaken for pay or profit, including jobs occupied by people working for themselves. ANZSCO is not designed to cover work not undertaken for pay or profit, for example
voluntary work. However, this does not preclude ANZSCO from describing such activities.
0

#20 User is offline   two planks 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 08-July 08

Posted 12 July 2008 - 03:14 PM

I suspect the reason that ANZSCO do not bother because voluntary work is unpaid, considerably varied so much so that a schedule of occupations under that heading would be as big as the main list, that the hours involed vary considerably and finally the fact that when undertaken by an invalid or disabled are very much within their capabilities and severely modified to what they can do.
To put them any where else would cause more problems than they would solve.

Of course if the incumbent Government Administration desires to make issues with this then it could only be to further limit government expenditure in the invalid sickness aged and infirm sectors.

I believe that conditions as in that American sheriff's jail, where he feeds them for less than a dollar a day and the conditions are worse than Guantanomo could be the future for pensioners invalids sick and disabled and for then conditions as evidencer in the ''Gagging'' incident will be the norm.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users