Kevin Jones

Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) advocates for workers’ rights and entitlements with occupational safety being one of those entitlements but sometimes the safety message from ACTU is a little narrow.

On 14 March 2012, the ACTU issued a media release responding to the release of important workplace safety data by Safe Work Australia. The release quotes ACTU President Ged Kearney emphasising very important data:

“This report has found that the cost of each workplace incident is around $99,100 and of this workers pay $73,300, the community $20,800 and employers $5100…”

and

“We think we are a clever country but it isn’t so smart to forgo almost 5% of our nation’s GDP on the cost of preventable workplace injury and illness…”

But what does the ACTU propose to address this economic cost of poor safety management? Continue reading “Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy”

New Workers’ Memorial announced for Australia

In May 2011, the Australian Government announced the development of a National Worker’s Memorial. The winning design, selected by an independent jury from a competitive pool of 26 entries, was announced in Canberra this evening.

Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten announced that Architects Johnson Pilton Walker have been awarded the task. In a media statement Shorten said that

“The memorial will honour and pay tribute to all working Australians who have died as a result of work-related accidents, incidents and disease… It will also provide an important focal point for the national commemoration of Workers’ Memorial Day, recognised internationally on 28 April each year.” Continue reading “New Workers’ Memorial announced for Australia”

The Australian newspaper dismisses workplace deaths as “sickies”

Safe Work Australia has released two important statistical reports. One concerns the number of Work-Related Traumatic Injury Fatalities for 2009-10 and the other is called The Cost of Work-Related injury and Illness for Australian Employers, Workers and the Community: 2008-09 .

These reports have gained minimal mainstream media coverage. In a very short article The Australian newspaper preferred to focus on productivity clauses in workplace agreements following a departmental report, as is its choice, but, more significantly, the newspaper’s headline dismisses the report’s cost estimates on “work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths” as “sickies”. The report on costs, from where The Australian drew its $A60 billion reference, includes an evaluation of the cost of workplace fatalities, defined in the report on page 18 as

“a work-related injury or disease, which results in death.”

It is enormously insulting that the newspaper includes workplace deaths in its disparaging headline “Workers’ sickies costing us $60bn”. Minister Bill Shorten states in his media release accompanying the reports that:

“Work-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities have a huge impact on Australian society. They can physically and mentally affect workers, colleagues, employers, families and the community. This latest research is evidence of the significant cost to Australia’s economy. Workplace safety is not just about avoiding human tragedy it is also about reducing economic cost for the nation.”

At a time when the Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, is trying to bring some rigour and dignity to the issue of workplace safety, The Australian newspaper should be ashamed.

Kevin Jones

The synchronicity of safety and environment

There has always been a moral similarity between the occupational health and safety (OHS) profession and the environmental advocates. One focusses on the immediate safety of humans and the other on the long term safety of humans. This similarity can create challenges for organisations and industries that have workers in both environmental settings such as forestry and mining. This type of challenge is currently being faced by Dr Nikki Williams of the Australian Coal Association.

In an article in the Weekend Australian on 10 March 2012 Dr Williams expressed concerns over a Greenpeace campaign against coal mining. (Significantly the newspaper included no quotes from either Bob Brown of the Australian Greens or from Greenpeace. ABC News did on on March 6 2012) She inadvertently compliments the campaigners by saying the campaign shows a “a very high level of planning”, is “sophisticated” and “very detailed”. Continue reading “The synchronicity of safety and environment”

Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog wrote:

“In many industries, and in the safety profession itself, people confuse the OHS laws of injury prevention with the Compensation laws of rehabilitation.”

This misunderstanding also extends to the public. Every so often, this blog receives comments from irate readers who express their frustration with “WorkSafe” or “Workcover”. It is a frustration that is shared by many but the frustration is frequently aimed at the wrong target. Most of the frustration stems from real or perceived injustice in the workers compensation system, but the criticism refers repeatedly to the OHS prevention and enforcement authority. Continue reading “Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands”

Australian union campaigns on mine safety using Pike River mother

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog suggested the need for a new approach to OHS advertising. Around the same time the Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU) launched the latest stage of its lobbying campaign against one of Australia’s largest mining companies, and a longtime target for unions, BHP BIlliton. This time the CFMEU connects the Pike River mining disaster with the safety performance of BHP Billiton; in some ways, an unfair connection.

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

In December 2011 the Victorian Liberal Government announced the removal of almost $A500 million from WorkCover funds to be placed in general revenue over the next four years. Some unions were outraged and began a protest petition. Labor politicians were similarly outraged.

The removal of the funds sounds odd as it is understood that these funds are originally generated through the workers compensation insurance premiums required to be paid by most Victorian businesses. The funds are then invested to provide a healthy return with the intention that the pool of WorkCover funds is used to support the OHS functions of WorkSafe and its inspectorate and to provide funds to assist in the rehabilitation of injured workers. Logically, the more funds available, the better the rehabilitation services and the better the prospect of people returning to work.

In this context, how come such a large amount can be removed without affecting the level of inspectorate and rehabilitation services? Does the current success of Australia’s economy really justify this move, even though a large part of that economic health is from States other than Victoria? Continue reading “Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover”

Author: Kevin Jones

Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy

Like this:

New Workers’ Memorial announced for Australia

Like this:

The Australian newspaper dismisses workplace deaths as “sickies”

Like this:

The synchronicity of safety and environment

Like this:

Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands

Like this:

Australian union campaigns on mine safety using Pike River mother

Like this:

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: