“…employers can achieve a positive return on investment for dollars spent in wisely managing employee health risks, chronic illnesses and disability.”

There are many official and independent reports that support the ACOEM statement.  One, from Massey University, is quoted by the New Zealand Department of Labour and puts the linkages simply:

“A recent study highlights a number of potential benefits from linking health and safety to productivity:

• fewer injuries mean that more people keep working
• designing safety into business is a source of increased innovation, improved quality and improved efficiencies
• safe workplaces enhance corporate reputations and improve staff recruitment and retention
• fewer injuries help reduce ACC levies”

Dame Carol Black, author of the 2008 report “Working for a healthier tomorrow“encouraged the UK government to take an “integrated approach to working-age health” supported by:

• “the inclusion of occupational health and vocational rehabilitation within mainstream healthcare
• clear professional leadership
• clear standards of practice and formal accreditation for all providers
• a sound academic base
• a revitalised workforce”

She expanded on this by advocating, at the conference, that the needs of the modern workforce could be addressed by having occupational health services:

• “suit the current profile of employment in different countries, as work is changing
• form new partnerships and find new ways of working across traditional boundaries
• make a greater contribution to national economies
• examine the care pathways for working people, and find new ways to support them, before, during and after illness
• relate to, and be further attached to, mainstream healthcare (primary and secondary) and relevant specialties.”

“Experimental tests conducted by the University of Southern Queensland indicate that the Quad Bar CPD is capable of either preventing a complete roll, or modifying the roll event to reduce the risk and severity of injury to the rider for both side roll and back flip scenarios. These results highlight the potential for CPDs such the Quad Bar to reduce rider injuries and fatalities resulting from low speed roll over incidents;”

Great news for the manufacturer of the Quad Bar.  However the report is damning of some research into quad bike rollovers, particularly that which has been relied on by the quad bike manufacturers to resist the application of CPDs.

The findings, some listed below, show that research in this area, particularly from some sources, is highly suspect.  That some sections of the quad bike industry persisted in denying any holes in their research has now been shown to be self-serving.  That this research has delayed the implementation of potentially life-saving devices on quad bikes, such as CPDs, will provide little comfort to those families whose relatives have died during the period of this unnecessary, and now found to be, unsubstantiated, disputation.

ISCRR’s criticisms of the quad bike research should generate a review of some of the quad bike safety guidelines that have been published over recent years by OHS and safety regulators as the “evidence” for some of the policy decisions has been shown to be very questionable.  If evidence-based policy making is a major aim of government, then when that evidence has been shown to be inaccurate, the policy needs urgent reassessment.

ISCRR has some sound recommendations for research in this area in the future.

“A working group containing representatives from the major stakeholders in this issue be formed and asked to plan out and agree on the nature and specification of future research activities before they are undertaken.”

This will be a difficult challenge as the previous cross-Tasman working group on quad bike safety generated a walk-out by the manufacturers’ representative when many of the questions about quad bike research were raised.  It will be difficult for the manufacturers to return to the table and regain legitimacy without first acknowledging the failure of their previous campaign strategy.

“A preliminary standard be proposed for the design and specification of Quad bike CPDs, perhaps based upon the existing New Zealand guidelines, or those for Tractor ROPS.”

The CPD manufacturers should welcome this process as, even though it may be a long process, will add independent a technical legitimacy to the devices.  The experience with tractor roll over protection structures (ROPS) was that many farmers manufactured their own when design standards were available.

In the light of the ISCRR’s findings, OHS regulators should begin to dust off their ROPS rebate schemes and start considering their application to CPDs.

“Funding is sourced from government or OH&S regulatory bodies for additional research into Quad bike crush protection devices [and] the research is undertaken in Australia by researchers with expertise in this field.”

The latter part of the recommendations is a major rejection of US-based research relied upon by the manufacturers, particularly the work undertaken for Dynamic Research Incorporated  by John W Zellner, a researcher who spent some time in Australia and attended some conferences in Australia in 2011.

The full research report, available by emailing ISCRR or contacting ISCRR though its website, provides an excellent critical analysis of many quad bike research reports quoted in SafetyAtWorkBlog over the last few years.  It also provides a detailed rebuttal of many of the objections to the Quad Bar made by the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The full report has the following conclusion which has the potential to form the basis of a new quad bike industry relationship, one that emphasises the undoubted practicality and popularity of the vehicle AND recognises the need to improve rider safety through innovative design and engineering solutions.

“This review identifies serious issues with the simulation methods used and the nature of incidents tested to predict the effect of crush protection devices on Quad bike roll over injuries and fatalities.  Limited experimental and simulation results indicate that the Quad Bar crush protection device demonstrates potential to reduce rider harm in such events.  Further research should be commissioned by government bodies and conducted by researchers with experience in the field to fully quantify these potential benefits.”

Kevin Jones

Below is a slightly edited list of some of those ISCRR criticisms:

“Various simulation programs (including MADYMO, ATB and MATD) were adapted and used by researchers to model Quad bike accident scenarios. A large number of shortcomings were identified with these models. Most importantly, none of the models were able to predict asphyxiation fatalities which accounted for 40% of Australian Quad bike roll over deaths;

The computer simulations were loosely based on Quad bike incident descriptions …[that]… were extremely brief and contained insufficient information to accurately define the accident scenarios;

Several issues were identified with the methods used to model the different terrains, particularly the ground stiffness and friction coefficients chosen, and the extreme length of the slopes commonly modelled. These factors appear to have generated roll dynamics and injury outcomes which are potentially inaccurate;

The Dynamic Research Inc. (DRI) research in particular caused a substantial and unexplained shift in the nature of the injuries predicted, dramatically over-predicting head injuries and virtually eliminating chest injuries. This shift in the nature of injuries predicted by the simulations removed much of the potential for crush protection devices tested to reduce the simulated rider injuries;

The method described by ISO 13232 for calculating risk benefit ratios was found to be extremely susceptible to influences from a range of factors including: the test scenarios chosen, the inherent variability in each case, and the methods used to compare minor, non permanent injuries with fatalities;

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) is an industry body which represents the major importers and distributors of Quad bikes within Australia, including Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha, Kawasaki, Polaris and Bombardier. …. Their reasons for rejecting such devices cannot be supported given the major problems with the research methodologies identified by this review.”

“I have a really bad feeling about this“

In Star Wars, Han Solo and other major characters express their gut feeling about various situations.  In traditional risk management parlance, that “gut feeling” would equate to subjectivity, an element of decision-making that needs to be minimised in risk management if not eliminated.  This has been sought through various statistical analysis tools, risk nomograms and rational approaches to risk.  But all decision-making has an element of the emotional, the subjective, the gut-feeling.  This position was emphasised recently in a presentation in an OHS conference by Dr David Brooks who described risk management as an art as well as a science.

Such a description may lead to the implication that risk management can legitimately be open to as large a range of interpretations as many visual arts can be, leading to risk management anarchy.  What Brooks was acknowledging was the subjectivity in decision-making for which, sometimes, there is no rational basis, or at least no rational basis in the often short time allotted for a decision to be made.  Sometimes risk management comes down to a “best guess”.

We should not get hung up on the “guess” part but we should be working to ensuring that the “best” is really as good as can be, given the circumstances in which the “best guess” will be voiced.  To achieve this goal, safety and risk professionals must have a broad understanding, or at least an awareness, of issues that could affect a decision.  In occupational health and safety (OHS), this needs to include how a rule or a policy is likely to be applied, where that rule or law has originated, and the baggage, ideology or politics contained within that rule.

Does this counter the move to establish “evidence-based decision-making“? No.  The decision-making process has not changed but the knowledge base from which that decision is drawn has.  There is less need to rely on gut-feeling in the 21st century as there was in the past as the pool of information easily available to professionals is greater now than ever before, but there has been a corresponding rise in unreliability of that data.

OHS and risk professionals need to develop super sensitive filters as well as a broad knowledge base to even approach an attempt at the “best guess”.  In some high-risk industries, such guesses have to be very, very good.  In lower-risk industries and occupations, the consequences of a poor decision may be considerably less catastrophic but there is just as much expectation that no decision should be “poor”, that every guess is a best guess.

Specialist OHS and risk professionals need to be particularly aware that too much speciality could limit the effectiveness of  their skills in the broader OHS market.

Kevin Jones

“… a brain drain triggered by the mining boom has forced employers in other sectors to increase salaries for safety professionals”

“… it appears that companies [in the mining sector] are now being more strategic in their approach by putting an emphasis on their HR and employee branding strategies rather than simply throwing more dollars at the problem”

“The angst surrounding the failure of OHS harmonisation may be overstated, as findings from the safesearch remuneration survey released today show top safety professionals have other priorities….. The majority of respondents said the biggest issue facing organisations was the difficulty in driving the Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) message to all levels of organisations, to promote safety culture and leadership commitment to HSE.”

Brain Drain

It has certainly been the case that Australia’s mining boom has created a shortage of skilled workers.  Whether this has extended to HSE professionals is uncertain. The experience in some industry sectors is that there are plenty of safety professionals but few with sufficient industry experience or the necessary industry-specific qualifications.  It is understood that the mining sector struggled to find HSE professionals with mining experience and this demand/supply is likely to be the major factor in salary increases.  It may be that the mining sector realised that it would need to train lower-qualified HSE professionals on-the-job.

The six-year cumulative data in the safesearch report would benefit from being analysed in line with the larger scale and independent statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Fair Work Australia and Safe Work Australia.

“simply throwing more dollars at the problem”

When commenting on the recent survey, safesearch accuses the mining sector of having tried to solve problems previously by “simply throwing more dollars at the problem.”  If this is the reality, it may be useful to reassess some of the five previous survey reports.

Also HR-friendly phrases like “employee branding” generate concern as the concept is rarely clarified and implies commodification of the workforce.

Harmonisation

The statements on harmonisation should be considered with great care.  The timing of the data collection could have affected the opinions of the respondents as in the last quarter of 201 as the debate on harmonisation became increasingly political with specific States withdrawing from, or suspending, the harmonisation of national OHS laws.

Whether the respondents operated on a national or single-State basis is also crucial as in many circumstances, new OHS laws will have minimal impact on organisations that operate in a single State.

Outside the harmonisation variation, the three major issues identified by respondents are little different from previous years – struggling to gain the attention and support of corporate executives and the development of a safety culture.

The safesearch remuneration survey may be six years old but the qualitative questions were new for this survey, as the safesearch Youtube video below  shows.  The depth of useful information provided by comparative qualitative data will need to wait for a few years.

It is difficult to verify the media  statements as the survey report is likely to cost around $A700.   A “teaser” set of statistics has been released but the information is so general that it is not enlightening.

Australia has a shortage of valid independent information about the OHS profession and safesearch should be commended for undertaking, and persisting with, this annual remuneration survey.  However the detailed report is very expensive, which likely reflects the cost of accumulating such data.  The cost also limits the distribution options and thereby the engagement of the profession with the findings.  It is noted that the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) supports the survey so more information, if not more scrutiny, may appear in future SIA publications.

SafetyAtWorkBlog had serious questions about a similar OHS-related survey, also supported by the SIA, in April 2011.  That survey, conducted through the Australian Institute of Management (AIM) had a broader remit and larger survey sample.  AIM also produces an annual National Salary Survey (around the same price as safesearch’s report).  The OHS profession would benefit greatly from these organisations coordinating their data collection to achieve the clearest indication of the economic health of the OHS profession and the standing of OHS in the Australian corporate mentality.

Kevin Jones

“…under the pump politically [and] I think they’re either just, or about to, press the button on inspectors charging 133 pounds per hour for their workplace visits……If they find an issue they will be charging the employer 133 quid an hour and they hope to make 10 million pounds out of that”

The concept of fee for intervention (FFI) was new to most in the seminar audience and it needed more explanation and context although the seminar imposed tight time constraints.   Given the economic status of the United Kingdom such cost recovery methods are logical, if unpalatable.

Forsyth missed an opportunity to explain what was happening in the UK and whether this could occur in Australia but did say that we would likely hear the FFI screams from the business sector even in Australia.  That is not the impression being given by HSE or the business sector.  FFI has been established as a cost recovery measure not revenue raising as his comments above imply.

HSE has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that the planned date for the “fee for intervention” (FFI) program is 1 April 2012, pending the successful passage of legislation.

The FFI issue was first suggested by the HSE in a consultative document in mid-2011.  A December 2011 Board paper confirmed that FFI was viable and went some way to explaining the FFI rationale:

“Firstly, it is reasonable that duty holders that operate in material breach of the law should bear the costs incurred by the regulator in putting things right, rather than the taxpayer. Secondly, it will provide an incentive for businesses to meet their obligations. Thirdly, it will provide a level playing field for those who do comply. Central to the scheme is the fact that compliant businesses will pay nothing and a contravention has to be significant – a material breach of law – to attract FFI. This ensures that the minimisation of costs incurred by any business within scope is in its own hands.”

The political attraction is clear – the health and safety of workers is back in the hands of the employer and the employer has an understanding of a base penalty/fee for non-compliance.  Of course there have been issues of concern in some UK sectors but these seem to be principally about inspectors applying the non-compliance too heavily or frivolously.  HSE believes that FFI is supported by a robust dispute resolution process and will be providing clarification on the matter in a guidance note.

FFI is an initiative that should be closely watched in other jurisdictions but must be considered in the current economic context of the United Kingdom.

Kevin Jones

Workplace Bullying

Ian Forsyth spent some time speaking about the importance of workplace bullying, repeatedly stressing that most calls to WorkSafe about bullying do not fit the definition that would allow WorkSafe to act.  No mention was made of the divergent views on workplace bullying coming through the public comment phase of the draft national code on workplace bullying over the last few months.

Several times Forsyth stressed that there were other avenues for action or appeal on matters that do not fit the WorkSafe definition, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman and other authorities.  This is the reality but the comments provide no real solution to handling the thousands of calls WorkSafe receives on workplace bullying each year.  Is WorkSafe proposing an advertising campaign  that explains potential options?  Is there any move within the Victorian Government to coordinate responses to this, obviously, time-consuming and important social issue?  Is the State Government asking the Federal Government for assistance or leadership on the issue?

Business as usual on workplace bullying is insufficient.  Where is the innovation?

Mental Health

SafetyAtWorkBlog was surprised that such time was spent on workplace bullying but with no mention of the broader context of psychosocial hazards of stress and mental health.  When asked, Ian Forsyth, started talking about the development of the next five-year strategy, mentioned that psychosocial hazards are a substantial challenge, said that WorkSafe is aware of the complexities and admitted, amazingly, that WorkSafe has “been more reactive than proactive” on mental health and stress.

Ian admitted that his answer was “fudgy” but it was more than that, it did not acknowledge that WorkSafe Victoria released one of the first Australian stress-related guidances in April 2007 – “Stresswise- Preventing Work-related stress, A guide for employers in the public sector“.  He failed to mention that WorkSafe is one of those providing funding to the Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR), and is a participant in ISCRR’s Research Strategy 2015, launched in August 2011, or that work has been occurring between WorkSafe and BeyondBlue on depression and anxiety in the return-to-work area.  An earlier incarnation of WorkSafe was well aware of the ACTU’s 2003 Stress at Work guide that developed out of the 1997 trade union survey.

Ian Forsyth’s comments may have been ill-informed but the confused ending to his presentation, and his statement on being reactive, did not go down well with the large audience of OHS professionals.

Harmonisation

At the front of mind of all occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals in Australia at the moment is the harmonisation of OHS laws.  The introduction of these laws in Victoria has been postponed pending a review of the economic impacts of the laws being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Forsyth reiterated many of the public and media statements over the last few months.  He repeatedly stated the fact that the economic impact information for Victoria provided by Safe Work Australia fell “well short of expectations”.

He described what this means for Victorian workplaces:

“It means that any changes to Victoria’s OHS laws that take place will be based on the outcome of that supplementary assessment now being undertaken.  It has been described in some quarters as being a twelve month delay of national reform, so will national reform be adopted or will it not be adopted? Twelve months will tell the story.

I’m not reading it that way.  My reading of it is that the government is undertaking a regulatory impact statement to understand the impacts of reforms, and it could be reforms as a total package, or it could be splitting up that package. I wouldn’t assume its either nothing or complete adoption of model laws.  The purpose of that regulatory impact statement is to look at what the impacts of specific things are and you may find that we’re in a position where there could be a selection of those reforms that might come into Victoria. [emphasis added]

Now, again, I’ve got to be careful.  I am not saying that is what’s going to happen but just don’t assume that there is a twelve month delay and then we’ll see the whole package implemented in Victoria.”

These comments have generated some discussions in legal and OHS areas,  Some have taken Forsyth’s comments as an indication that the Victorian Government will follow the New South Wales path by accepting most of the model laws but will retain, or introduce, some business-friendly elements.  Others took the comments as WorkSafe being as much in the dark as anyone else.

What is clear is that the comments did little to reassure Victorian businesses, or the OHS profession, that the OHS law reform strategy in this State will ease the burden of compliance for companies operating across Australia.

Kevin Jones

Dame Carol Black

The High Risk OHS Summit 2012 (why it’s high risk, no one seems to know) started with a bang with a detailed presentation from Dame Carol Black, a major instigator of work health reforms in the United Kingdom.  Dame Black was able to provide several case studies and some data that provided a fresh perspective on what work and health and safety means to the British workers.  For instance, she stated that of those employed in the UK, 26% are working with a health condition or disability. Black also said that 2.4% are off sick at any one time

Black also adds the personal to her presentations and admitted that she had not been aware of what makes “a good job” until beginning her review over five years ago. It is a terrific question to ask one’s self and colleagues.  What makes a good job?

David Gregory of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also spoke at the conference and, as usually, was very cautious in what he said and how he said it.

David Gregory

Gregory’s comments always need reflective consideration in order to identify alternate interpretations and different perspectives but the “highpoint” was his statement that ACCI members would prefer psychosocial hazards, such as bullying and fatigue, to be regulated through guidances rather than Codes, as compliance with Codes is more onerous than the flexibility offered by guidelines. He was taken to task by an ACCI Member in the conference audience who disagreed with this position. It showed that in all organisations it can be those with the loudest voice (or time to participate) who set the agenda.

Gregory also said that ACCI members have three major concerns with the new Work Health and Safety law reforms:

• personal responsibility in supply chains;
• OHS audits that do not progress safety at work; and
• Codes that misinterpret the new OHS laws and may introduce new OHS obligations.

This conference is presenting a fascinating OHS debate while also collating a variety of data and opinions. More is to come as the Australian Council of Trade Unions addresses the conference.

 Kevin Jones

“…a march … into the traditional heartland of the public safety, product safety and professional liability territory, and it brings with it a criminalisation of what was once an exclusively civil liability domain.  The new laws did not invent this trend, they just perfected it.”

Right-wing commentators would jump on this and declare “nanny state” but it is vitally important to note that this trend of “protectionism”, or the “compensation culture” as described in the United Kingdom, did not originate in occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.  The OHS profession, business operators and workers will need to learn to accommodate and manage this social trend that has been imposed.

Tooma writes that “

“…we have not had a proper debate about the incursion of the laws into nontraditional areas and its impact on the resources of firms, regulators and ultimately work safety standards.”

The debate may already be over.  WorkSafe Victoria seems to be the main conduit for workplace bullying complaints even though the vast majority of calls do not constitute workplace bullying.  But some of those calls may relate to genuine abuse, exploitation and harassment so where to next, after WorkSafe says “it is not us”?  Government needs to acknowledge this trend that their laws are supporting and prepare by restructuring or, at least, coordinating.

The new OHS laws have taken the workplace well outside the confines of the factory fence or the office building.  There is a certain logic to wrapping the workplace around the worker but there has been little preparation for educating about the public places where that worker goes.  The coffee shop, the footpath, the park bench, the bus, the airport terminal, the fast food restaurant, the beach ……..  All are now exposed to work health and safety laws because work is, or can be, conducted there.

“All it takes is one high-profile disaster, a high degree of culpability by an agency or firm, and the associated public outcry — and you will have all the necessary ingredients for regulatory adventures into expansive interpretations of these laws” [says Tooma].

Australia is on the cusp of such a disaster and the inevitable outcry will be substantial.  Questions will be asked such as why did the OHS regulator fail to act?  Why are Government Ministers exempt from accountability under the OHS laws?  Why did the government agencies not coordinate their responses better?   Why didn’t someone do something to prevent the incident?

These questions are inevitable in Australia, just as they have been in the United States in relation to many major industrial disasters and in the United Kingdom  with rail disasters, Piper Alpha and other events.  But where such disasters have generated new safety laws and regulatory bodies and approaches, Australia seems to have written the laws before the events and is hoping that existing regulatory structures will cope.  They won’t cope and the government will struggle to answer questions that have been complicated by their own actions.

Last week, occupational health and safety inductions were provided with the NBN and e-learning approach.  According to a media statement issued in early February 2012:

“With Australia moving to adopt a national qualification to enable workers to enter a construction site, a project is currently underway to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of an immersive 3D computer game to deliver occupational health and safety (‘White Card’) certification training for the construction industry.

This would enable workers to use a training computer game to learn and be assessed for the unit of competency required by the National Code of Practice for Induction for Construction Work, without being compromised by time and place. Importantly, it also allows trainees to gain real world experience ‘on site’ or ‘using’ industrial equipment without exposing them to potential risk.” [links added]

SafetyAtWorkBlog posed some questions to one of the participants of the program, Skills Tasmania, and received the following responses from one of the program partners, Mark O’Rourke, the Educational Advisor of the Curriculum Innovation Unit of the Victoria University:

Many online induction and qualification courses in the construction industry are refused to be recognised because it cannot be verified that the potential ticket holder IS the person who undertook the online course. How does the simulator game confirm the identity?

This requirement differs state to state. We are building the resource which aims to offer engaging relevant training. It is up to RTOs as to how they use the resource and the requirements from Worksafe for delivery of the White Card in each state. At VU there will always be a qualified TAFE teacher overseeing the delivery of the training game.

Construction workers are not famous for their computer literacy. How will FLAG encourage construction workers to participate? Or will this be the focus for State OHS regulators?

Unlike other online systems games based learning does not require a large degree of digital literacy. The game requires you to navigate through a 3D space, but once you have mastered this all other content is delivered to the user in game. Mastering this navigation is integrated in the tutorial section of the game. In addition the game offers different customised experiences, so if you are an avid gamer it will still provide challenging gameplay.

Some States are undertaking increased infrastructure programs on public transport which frequently involves an additional level of induction and qualification in rail safety. Is there any plan to incorporate rail safety training in the online learning?

The game will be specific for the construction industry White Card, but we have built OHS games for laboratory sciences and engineering. We are always looking for more development opportunities – funding is the primary concern.

An “immersive 3D computer game” echoes many of the claims of contemporary video game consoles. Will the simulator games require any additional hardware, such as game control pads?

The game can be used on any computer with a reasonable processor with a keyboard or mouse. Alternatively a game controller could be plugged in and used. We are also developing the game so it can be operated on a 3D TV and portable devices.

Is there a minimum computer hardware requirement for accessing and running the simulation?

Computers with an i5 processor with 2GB RAM run the game well.

Playing computer games on smart phones, tablets and PCs are very different experiences, how will the strategy ensure that the varying comprehension (leading to competence) of each participant will result in a similar, uniform level of qualification?

Porting the game to different devices requires modifying the programming and will result in sightly different user experience. However the learning content of the game is delivered through in game tasks and scenarios-these will remain consistent across delivery platforms. The in-game tasks are mapped against the performance criteria in the Unit of Competency delivered for White Card certification.

Can anyone fail the training program and, if so, what is the process for resitting the training?

The beauty of using games for training is that they strongly align with competency based training in that you undertake in-game tasks over and over until you get them right. Failing the tasks is integral to the learning experience and unlike the real world the catastrophic consequence of making a mistake can be emphasised through explosions, death and injury. You do the tasks until you succeed in the game. You can always come back and play the game a second, third or fourth time.

Do you see the simulation program being undertaken individually (perhaps on a home computer) or in a computer training room with a trainer/facilitator?

State delivery requirements dictate this. In Victoria it will be delivered in the presence of a trainer/facilitator. This does not preclude remote location, or work based delivery.

Could that computer training room scenario be undertaken totally online through NB by means of video-conferencing on online supervision and assistance?

Video invigilation is always an option for delivering training that requires the identification of the trainee. This would require negotiation with Worksafe to ensure compliance.

Are you aware of any countries with a similar OHS legislative structure to Australia where such a program is already operational?

Our focus is on creating engaged interactive learning, and as such the game could be used as a training tool overseas. Legislative constraints always need to be considered in the delivery of any offshore education. As yet I haven’t explored these possibilities.

Kevin Jones

Researchers at University College London have found that

“Testosterone causally disrupts collaboration during joint decision-making – and does so by increasing individuals’ egocentricity, so that they overweigh their own subjective decisions.”

Those safety professionals who have worked in male-dominated industry sectors may find this to be confirmation of their experience of workplace negotiations but the potential social and organisational  impacts of the research deserve attention and discussion. It should be emphasised that the research focused on testosterone and how it affected women, as shown in another article on the same research.

The full article elaborates on the findings, importantly:

“…this effect was selective because while disrupting collective decision-making, testosterone left individual decisions unaffected, which is important in the light of testosterone’s widespread associations with aspects of non-social choice such as attention, working memory, spatial memory and reward processing…”

The broader context of this research was acknowledged in the research findings where several possibilities were mooted:

“A third possibility is that testosterone might render individuals less susceptible to social influence more generally….”

OHS strategies seem to be increasingly incorporating biological and neurological research and there is a great trap that such approaches under-emphasise the social context of work.  A multidisciplinary approach on how male workers, particularly, make workplace decisions could prove fascinating.

One researcher, Nicholas Wright is quoted as saying

“Too much testosterone can help blind us to other people’s views…  This can be very significant when we are talking about a dominant individual trying to assert his or her opinion in, say, a jury….”

Or an OHS committee.

Kevin Jones

“When we look at global trends it’s clear that Australia’s labour laws are not the primary cause of the contraction in manufacturing.”

Shelley Marshall, a Monash University researcher and Fair Wear Australia spokesperson made this statement at an Australian Senate inquiry on 2 February, 2012.  The statement, reported in The Australian Financial Review (not available online), was used to illustrate the complexities of outworker protections under the Fair Work Act but it is, occasionally, worth looking a broader context.  If one accepts that workplace safety is a subset of industrial relations laws (as SafetyAtWorkBlog does), Marshall’s comments help cut through some of the recent hyperbole from the industry associations and lobbyists about the significant economic and productivity costs of OHS law reform.

Marshall identified the extension of supply chains as affecting productivity.  The issue of supply chain responsibility has an established OHS context as it relates to the issue of “control”, a matter raised as an objection to the implementation of new Work Health and Safety laws.  OHS laws have always extended an employer’s, or principal contractor’s, safety obligation along the contractor chain, a requirement that takes up considerable time of safety managers but has established an important precedent.

Peter Nolan, the Director of Workplace Relations for the Australian Industry Group, is reported in the AFR as questioning, at the Senate inquiry,

“…why companies should be held responsible for those employed further down the chain when they had “no control or knowledge, over practices.”

Clearly the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is not as accepted in Australia as it is elsewhere.

The issue of contractor management and supply chain responsibility for work heath and safety should not still being debated.  Those who benefit from the labour of others should be assured that the labour was undertaken safely and without harm.  It is not unreasonable to hope for a statement on our products saying ”no one was harmed in the making of this product”.  We have similar statements on our shampoo bottles and our films but we seem to give a higher significance to animals than humans.

The argument of “control” has the potential to stall OHS reforms but it also distracts from what the new OHS laws are trying to push – everyone has a responsibility for safety.  One’s safety, or safety obligation, is not tied to the actions of another.  Certain OHS expectations can be included in a contract but the principal contractor should be able to trust the contractors and suppliers to abide by their contractual and legislative (and moral) obligations.  Control implies interference and distrust.  Perhaps the new OHS laws reflect a maturity that some industrial and political sectors are afraid of.

Kevin Jones

“According to the report released by the Centre today, the 2011 information illustrates a 60% drop in the number of on‐farm injury deaths when compared to the early 1990’s, where the average number of deaths was 146 per year. “This reduction over the past 20 years is fantastic news, however by our estimates, many more deaths can be prevented by adopting solutions which we know from the evidence work” said Dr Lower.

The study results show that quad bikes (18) were the leading cause and made up 31% of all deaths.

Meanwhile tractors (10) were responsible for 17% of incidents. Tragically, seven of the fatal cases (11%) involved children aged 15yrs and under, with quad bikes (3) and drowning (2) being most frequently involved.”

An understandable limitation of the report is the fact that the social influence of print media is much less than in previous decades and that the report misses multimedia and the new medias.  This is one of those research reports than can genuinely suggest additional research to increase the relevance of the findings.  AgHealth could benefit greatly by seeking additional research support in this area from some of the media research schools of Australian universities.

An interesting finding is that

“This is the first time that tractors have not been the leading cause of death and really reflects ongoing design improvements centered on rollover protection. Significantly, while the number of deaths with every other cause is going down, quad bikes are going off the scale in the opposite direction. The 18 cases only represent on‐farm incidents and we know there were a further 5 off‐farm quad bike deaths,taking the national total to 23 deaths.”

Dr Lower’s comments are timely as the Queensland Government has commenced a public discussion period for a revised Code of Practice for Rural Plant, which includes quad bikes and ATVs.  The draft Code curiously is weak on the application of the hierarchy of controls given that the new national Work Health and Safety legislation requires risk and hazards to be assessed and controlled in line with the hierarchy.  It does discuss the need to assess the work environment to identify risks and on a farm, in relation to quad bikes, this would be everywhere.  Although the major changes to the existing Code involve the change from ATV to quad bike and the corresponding safety debate, more attention to how the draft code applies to quad bike operation is required and this is likely to come through the public comments.

There is no specific mention in the Code of crush protection devices (CPDs), a central point of dispute between safety advocates, equipment manufacturers and the quad bike industry.  The government’s recommended comments paper does however.  It requests comments on

“CPD’s: Should the code include information on crush protection devices (CPD’s)?”

The easy answer to this question is a resounding Yes.  Information on a range of risk control options should be included in OHS codes of practice.  To not do so would restrict the state of knowledge on safety innovations.  However a more important and politically charged question could be “Should the code recommend crush protection devices?”

The production of a revised Code of Practice for Rural Plant in Queensland remains a long way off and is not guaranteed.  OHS laws and regulation in Australia are in a contentious state of flux and uncertainty.  Many State OHS regulators have suspended their guidance production programs due to the OHS harmonisation process.  Now that the harmonisation process has slowed to a crawl, the development of OHS guidance on a national basis is very uncertain.

It is certain that public submissions of the rural plant code will illustrate the ideological differences of various organisation concerning workplace safety but it is hard to see a pathway to progress while OHS reform in Australia is so shaky.

Kevin Jones

“At this point in time, it looks unlikely that harmonisation will be achieved at any time during 2012, if it is ever achieved at all.”

The question needs to be asked whether the whole harmonisation process has been waste of time of whether some good has resulted from all the effort.  Prior to Christmas 2011, some legal commentators were satisfied that the harmonisation process had “lifted” several States’ OHS laws to a contemporary standard but the aim of harmonisation, indeed the “promise” of harmonisation was so much more.

Australian businesses that operate over multiple jurisdictions are justified in pointing the finger of blame at the ultra-conservative business groups, lobbyists and alarmists for stifling a very promising reform.  The administrative process could have been handled much better but each government had signed commitments to reform from which many are now weaseling out of.  Regardless of subsequent changes of government, these commitments should have been upheld.

Tooma, Titterton and Cornell summarise by writing:

“For legislative reform that was meant to be about providing clarity to a complex area with differing standards across multiple jurisdictions, after four years of significant effort, it appears we may have been merely gifted more confusion and simply a different set of differences.

Unfortunately, we know that it is the safety of our people that will ultimately suffer when confusion over such requirements reigns.”

Safety law is set to become more confusing and more complex.  Increased reliance on legal advice,with the subsequent increases in business costs, is likely.  However this does not necessarily mean that the management of safety is any more onerous.  An employer’s duty of care to workers is an established obligation that has been integrated in business standards, corporate obligations and community expectations.  The social expectation that workers will not place themselves at risk of harm has substantially increased.

What has changed, if harmonisation does fail, is that safety professionals and business operators must not rely on OHS laws for change and compliance but must look to other reference points for safety compliance.  There are already international safety and risk Standards that provide a framework for compliance and which have been provided some legal legitimacy through the OHS regulators.  Where these are not sufficiently specific, safety organisations, such as the Safety Institute of Australia, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health and SIWA, must show leadership.

If the Norton Rose comments are correct, it is time to ask who will reduce the confusion and who will clarify the “different set of differences”?  If the reference point for lawyers is the law, what should be the reference point for safety professionals?  If the OHS law reform process has fallen over, it is time for Australia’s safety organisations to “piss or get off the pot”.

Kevin Jones

Recently St John Ambulance in England, according to one newspaper report, claimed that

“Better training would have a greater effect on the health and safety culture than changes to regulations discussed by the [UK] Government…”

The St John Ambulance CEO, Sue Killen [not the most appropriate surname for a CEO of a lifesaving organisation] spoke about the UK Prime Minister’s “culture of fear” saying by asking:

“…what is causing this fear? At St John Ambulance, we believe it comes from a lack of knowledge – specifically, first aid knowledge.

We think that one of the key factors underlining this whole argument about health and safety culture is the nation’s attitude towards first aid….

If more people knew first aid, they would have the confidence to deal with emergencies when they occur. Instead, a lack of skills and the nervousness associated with this leads to events being cancelled, communities disappointed and shock headlines.”

Killen overstates the occupational health and safety (OHS) significance of first aid training. OHS aims for harm prevention and first aid deals with the aftermath of failure. The causal link is mostly anecdotal where trained first aiders realise that they never want to use the skills they have been given and so have an increased awareness of hazards. Having worked in the first aid training sector for some years in the 1990s, I can vouch for this realisation but I doubt the hazard awareness is sustained for very long when the first aider returns to their workplace and the culture operating there.

St John Ambulance in Victoria regularly claimed that first aid training could result in a reduction of injuries of, from memory, 30%, but the research report on which the claim was based was of a small sample of workers in the Tasmanian forestry industry in the early 1990s or the 1980s. Killen’s claims above may prove to be true but there seems to be little evidence other than anecdotally that this is the case. The first aid organisations are strong on supporting medical research into first aid effectiveness but there is little research into the workplace context of first aid training.

First aid is proven to increase the chance of survival from a serious or life-threatening injury but does it assist in preventing that injury? Sue Killen has a belief that first aid training does prevent injuries.  Research needs to be undertaken to verify or dismiss that belief.

 Kevin Jones

On the workplace bullying issue, Tweedly has said previously that he does not believe that WorkSafe has a toxic work environment. When the accusations were being aired in 2011 it was Tweedly who faced the media, where in the past it would have been more likely for the Executive Director to address these issues. Bullying accusations are highly embarrassing for WorkSafe as they issue the sdvice on preventing bullying at work, however WorkSafe is only one of the many government bodies in Victoria and in other Australian States that have been accused of this hazard. Other instances of workplace bullying reports have resulted in independent inquiries but not so with WorkSafe. Perhaps Tweedly is right and the working environment in WorkSafe is not toxic, or no more toxic than any other government department or authority. Perhaps the critics should be focussing on the problem of bullying in the workplace rather than the workplace, or the executive management, itself.

The Herald-Sun played the media release(not yet available online) straight and simply reiterated the content about Tweedly’ decision but The Age linked implied that Tweedly’s non-renewal of his contract was a response to the government’s removal of $A471 million of WorkSafe money. There has been little outrage over the government’s economic decision and The Age’s report seems to indicate that The Age sees the decision as an injustice. Placing money generated from and by the workers’ compensation premiums paid compulsorily by almost all Victorian businesses into consolidated revenue should be criticised. The WorkCover funds should be directed to easing the pain of work-related injuries and not into the government revenue pool.

It could be argued that, as was said in Tweedly’s media release, Victoria is “the safest state in Australia in which to work” and, therefore, there is reducing need for WorkCover funds but it is also acknowledged that the incidence of occupational illnesses is under-reported and that the complex and expensive workplace issues of stress, fatigue and mental illness are not being addressed in an effective manner. WorkCover revenue could easily have been directed to specific preventative strategies on these emerging workplace hazards, in a similar way to how WorkCover funded its WorkHealth campaign.

The decision to redirect funds originating from businesses intended to fund compensation and harm prevention activities and programs reflects the political ideologies of the current Conservative Government in Victoria. Where there was the potential to use a revenue pool in a positive, creative manner within the economic sector that generated that pool, the government chose to remove, or at least limit, that potential.

There is no evidence that this economic decision has any relation to Greg Tweedly’s decision to leave WorkSafe Victoria. It may be that, like many other executives, eight years in the CEO job where there is no chance for promotion is enough.  More interest should come from who is chosen as Tweedly’s replacement and any new strategy they implement.

Kevin Jones