American legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein does not write about occupational health and safety (OHS) directly, but he writes about the society in which OHS operates. In November 2022, he reviewed an economics book in an article called “Accounting for the Human Cost.” OHS may have a strong moral core, but one can argue that it is more of an economic discipline due to the necessity for analyzing costs and benefits to gauge compliance with laws and regulations.
The Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI) has produced a useful analysis on hybrid and flexible work practices. However, as with most of the media coverage and commentary on workplace flexibility and working from home, the discussion of the psychological health benefits and risks is rudimentary and seems to ignore renewed employer duties under the occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.
Workplace psychological health has been dominated by wellness advocates for several decades. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is seen by many as an interloper with “new” regulations that impose rules, expectations, notifications, and records on a corporate wellness sector that has been hugely influential on employers’ perspectives of mental health at work. This interjection by OHS “upstarts” does not stand up to examination. Social determinants of health have included work factors for many years. Richard G Wilkinson wrote about the psychosocial causes of illness in 1997, providing a helpful perspective applicable today.
Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) has improved over the decades. Yet, preventable injuries and fatalities persist—over 180 quad bike deaths since 2011, for example, with rollovers leading the charge. We have regulations, campaigns, and a national body in Safe Work Australia, but something’s still missing. Why aren’t workplace redesign efforts—like fitting rollbars on quads or rethinking production systems—more widespread? The answer might lie in a hidden barrier: the WHS profession’s shaky grasp of financial literacy, compounded by the stranglehold of financial underwriting models and capital market expectations. Maybe it’s time we admit that the safety game isn’t just about risk assessments—it’s about money, and we’re not playing it well enough.
Recent statistics on farm safety by AgHealth Australia reported in an earlier article, have also garnered attention from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The focus is on the number of deaths associated with side-by-side (SXS) vehicles, and farming seems to be treated as a special work health and safety case. Farming is not exceptional but represents different cultural values that deserve greater attention.
This newspaper article on the current status of Working from Home (paywalled) was satisfying on at least two levels: it was a sensible report on most of the benefits of this type of work arrangement and showed the limitations of newspaper publishing.
I am a big fan of diagnosis as a tool for obtaining evidence from which decisions about occupational health and safety (OHS) can be made. However, increased attention on the inclusion of mental health management in OHS exposes us to the same minefield that is currently surrounding the (over?) diagnosis of autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and neurodivergence. Recently, the New Statesmen provided a useful analysis of the issue in a review of several new books.
