The Age newspaper included a short article on drugs in the workplace in a small business pages on 4 August 2009. For OHS professionals there is little new information but it’s a nice summary of some of the legal and management challenges on this workplace hazard.
Sadly some of the reply comments to the article online are demoralising.
The signs are not good for the future of BHP Billiton’s safety program. At the Diggers & Dealers conference in Western Australia on 5 August 2009, Ian Ashby, the President of BHP Billiton Iron Ore expanded on his statements some months ago about the poor safety practices at the company’s Pilbara worksites.
According to one media report, Ashby has said that BHP’s safety performance was “generally showing improving trends”. He also said
“We’re looking for systems to eliminate these tragic events….. There hasn’t been any epiphany but we need to increase the intentionality and focus.”
Ashby specified two particular occupational hazards
In April 2009, Ashby identified the following safety areas as those requiring attention:
Ashby’s presentation to the conference is now available for download.
The concern for the future safety performance of BHP Billiton comes from Ashby statements that, according to the press report, “the root of the problem was a poor attitude towards safety in the Pilbara region.
“There is an element that I don’t like to dwell on, but there is a complacency generally in the Australian workforce and a bit of an arrogance. I think some of that is quite manifest in the Pilbara.”
Ashby must have read the comments by Warren Edney about the lack of “safety brainwashing” in relation to the Pilbara miners. [SafetyAtWorkBlog has tried to clarify Edney’s comments with his employer, Royal Bank of Scotland]
The machismo of mine workers and new mining employers may be part of the issue but, as has been pointed out before, a similar Australian company in the same industry sector in very similar geographies – Rio Tinto – does not have anywhere near the same amount of fatalities even though it draw from the same worker demographics.
The OHS issue at BHP Billiton seems to be developing into a classic study of safety versus production.
It may be useful to note the report in the business section of The Age newspaper entitled “China taking all the ore we can ship: BHP“, a report generated from the same presentation by Ian Ashby at Diggers & Dealers’.
On 4 August 2009, John Merritt, Executive Director of WorkSafe Victoria, spoke at an OHS function hosted by the Australian Human Resources Institute in Melbourne. John is a lively speaker whose passion for workplace safety is obvious. I had the opportunity to ask the following question
“How is reasonably practicable NOT a ‘get-out-jail-free card’?”
Many readers will know that I am skeptical about “reasonably practicable” as is evident from the question. However John’s response was the first from a non-lawyer that saw some positives in the concept. John said
“I do think [the concept] is a real strength in the law. In trying to move people to embrace this issue, for those who are in that denial phase, they often think we are asking them to do the impossible, and I find it really useful to say “no we’re not. We’re asking you to do that which is reasonably practicable.
Our job, if we say what you’re doing is not reasonably practicable, all we have to do is go and find someone who is just like you who is doing it. We’re not asking you to do anything that somebody else, and usually in some critical mass of numbers, isn’t already doing, so why can’t you do it?” And I think that’s a reasonably sophisticated law.
You’ve got to have really good teams of investigators and lawyers and inspectors and all that sort of stuff to make that sort of law work. But that’s good, that’s doable …. but I do think, in our field, its a reasonable proposition.
The alternative, which is an absolute duty – you must have a safe workplace and if someone is hurt, prima facie, you’ve failed and you need to prove to us that you’re innocent – can be made to work as well and most of the research is …. but in trying to move that hearts and minds of, particularly, our target audience, I think it’s the right way to go.”
It was refreshing to hear that “reasonably practicable” can be used as a tool for good instead of evil through illustrating an example of a control measure that has already been found to be reasonably practicable. Tangible examples have been missing from OHS in Australia for a long time, ever since the OHS Solutions databases fell over in the 1990s.
If WorkSafe finds such examples useful for businesses, it would be good to see such databases resurrected. The images below show some pages from “Share Solutions” a hard copy database produced by WorkSafe’s predecessor, the Occupational Health and Safety Authority, in the late 1980’s. It would be a good idea if someone like Safe Work Australia investigated the feasability of resurrecting this initiative.
Graham Winter is an Australian psychologist 
who was the chief psychologist for the Australian Olympic team and is now an author and business adviser. In August 2009 he has a book released entitled “The Man Who Cured the Performance Review”.
SafetyAtWorkBlog managed to interview Graham last week about the book, stress and safety leadership. The SafetyAtWorkBlog podcast is available for download.
As part of the Australian government’s program of national OHS harmonisation, Safe Work Australia has released “Proposed revisions to the workplace chemicals regulatory framework“. This has been a long time coming.
This is not yet open for public comment but is a great indication of what Australian workplaces that handle chemicals may be in for. Not being experts in dangerous goods, SafetyAtWorkBlog will let the document speak for itself.
“This National Standard marks a significant change in the approach to the classification and communication of chemical hazards in the workplace. The National Standard adopts the principles of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) published by the United Nations. The adoption of the GHS in the workplace chemicals framework serves two important purposes:
- it represents best practice in the classification of chemicals and the communication of hazards using a standardised approach that will allow harmonisation amongst international trading partners; and
- it allows the promulgation of a streamlined framework for identifying, assessing and controlling chemical hazards in the workplace, where hazards may be related to health or physical effects.
The previous national framework for managing chemical hazards in the workplace was based on a distinction between hazardous substances and dangerous goods. Hazardous substances were associated with human health effects (for example acute toxicity or carcinogenicity) and dangerous goods were predominantly associated with physical effects (for example corrosivity, flammability). In many cases, a single chemical would be classified as both a dangerous goods and a hazardous substance, triggering the need to comply with two distinct regulatory frameworks.
This National Standard provides a consolidated basis for the control of health hazards and physical hazards arising from the presence of chemicals in the workplace. In this framework chemical substances, mixtures and articles can be classified as “hazardous chemicals”― a term that includes both health hazards and physical hazards.”
From a brief look, it is noted that MSDS loses a letter to become SDS, Safety Data Sheets. The principal reference codes and guidelines such as those below are now being reviewed and the public comment period began on 31 July 2009.
Because Australia will follow the guidelines of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, the issue of environmental impact of work-related chemicals will also become relevant. The proposal says
“A full implementation of the GHS would require the provision of appropriate information on labels and safety data sheets (SDS) where a chemical is classified as an environmental hazard.”
All of this sounds like a big shake-up for many Australian businesses and safety advisers but there is still time for the government and Safe Work Australia to provide enough information to minimise its impact. The release of the proposed revisions prior to public comment is a positive sign.
The Heimlich manoeuvre is an established first aid technique for removing a blockage, commonly from food. First aid courses in Australia do not teach the technique as the evidence for the efficacy of the technique is lacking. The Australian recommendation is to relax the person so that they can cough and to dislodge the blockage through solid thumps on the back.
First aid instructors need to spend time in almost every first aid class to counter the cultural dominance of the Heimlich manoeuvre.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “The Health Report” investigates the evidence for and against the Heimlich manoeuvre with interviews with Dr Henry Heimlich and with one of Dr Heimlich’s critics, his son Peter. Peter describes his father as a celebrity doctor.
A Wikipedia article on choking includes the following quote from a 2005 article in the Cincinatti Magazine:
“According to Roger White MD of the Mayo Clinic and American Heart Association (AHA), “There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in.”
The relevance of this podcast is very important for OHS professionals as an indication of the competence and validity of first aid training providers.
The podcast also raises other relevant issues concerning evidence-based decision-making, the manipulation and power of the media, and the credibility of subject-matter experts.
The podcast is a fascinating medical tale, a family saga and, perhaps, a case study for media students, but mostly as a precautionary tale for OHS professionals.
The largest Australian telecommunications company, Telstra, announced the release today of a new service for mobile telephones aimed at the business sector. Below are some excerpts from the media release:
“Telstra launches new smartphone to power workforce productivity
August 3, 2009 – Business professionals have a powerful new productivity tool at their disposal with the launch of the new HTC Snap on the Telstra Next G™ network.
Available from 11 August, the Snap is a Windows Mobile®-powered smartphone that helps users get the most out of every hour by connecting them with email, their office calendar and the mobile internet in real-time….
Telstra Business Executive Director, Cathy Aston, said the HTC snap was the ideal productivity device for busy business people who need to respond to clients and manage their email on the go.”
“The email-ready HTC Snap lets users steal back otherwise lost work time by keeping them connected to email on the commute to work, on the way to the airport or when waiting to attend a meeting.”
“Telstra Product Management Executive Director, Ross Fielding, said this remarkably slim smartphone set a new benchmark for productivity device affordability and would appeal to business people who demand always-on email, as well as consumers who are increasingly interested in messaging capabilities on the go.”
The words emphasised above indicate a dominant thought that business people are obliged to be contactable at all times of the week. Research is beginning to show that this is becoming an unsafe practice, if it is not already (see below). The “steal back otherwise lost work time” is of concern. What time is being referred to going to the toilet, spending time with one’s family, countering fatigue and stress through sleep?
In December 2008, Telstra undertook a survey of small business operators. The survey showed that many would be working over the Christmas break. Telstra Business Group Managing Director, Deena Shiff said
“In 2008, Australian SMEs have been world leaders in the take up of mobile technology based on the Telstra Next G™ network – in fact businesses are now using mobile technology more than fixed line phones and data….
The key is to use technology not to intrude on personal time, but to manage the ongoing needs of the business in a more efficient way that doesn’t keep people away from family.” [my emphasis]
In 2006, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Developmetn (CIPD) undertook research that said
“The phenomenon of “teleworking” has been overexaggerated, is unlikely ever to be a prospect for the majority of workers, and may be overshadowing far more effective means of improving work-life balance…”
The most important feature of modern mobile phones is the OFF button.