Category: advertising

More safety indemnities offered but with similar limitations

In August-September 2012 a media release was circulated in Australia promoting an

“…an Australian industry first – leading construction & mining workplace safety provider RIS offers to indemnify operators against non compliance prosecution.”

This may be a first for RoofSafe Industrial Safety (RIS) but not for Australia.  SafetyAtWorkBlog has reported on a smaller but similar system that originated in the automotive repair industry.

RIS’ Syncron system has several steps to compliance

  • Safety Audit
  • Assessment and Priorities
  • Coordinated actions aimed at maximum cost savings
  • Indemnification
  • Ongoing Monitoring and Continuous Improvement

It seems to be popular in the mining sector, according to the RIS website and clearly, from the media release, RIS is expanding its application from its fall–protection base into construction.

Indemnification

There are lots of issues of concern in the media release, if not in the Syncron system itself.  The indemnification is of particular concern and although these sorts of safety management systems are apparently cleared through legal advisers they need a great deal of explanation in order for businesses to feel comfortable.

One of the potential traps of these systems is that indemnification only exists when the assessment and management system is followed absolutely, as highlighted below.  Although the advisory resources exist outside the customer’s business, checking and monitoring still comes from the customer and adequate resources are required.

The legalese through all Syncron brochures and statements needs forensic analysis.   Continue reading “More safety indemnities offered but with similar limitations”

Lessons for Australia from UK assault on OHS red tape

The chase for government and corporate effectiveness and productivity increases through cutting “red tape” has, historically, had dubious longterm benefits. The attack on the red tape of occupational health and safety (OHS) has been brutal in the United Kingdom and has occurred with an unforgiving, and misguided, tabloid media.  Some in the UK media have been pointing out the government’s strategic folly, the latest is Russell Lynch in the Evening Standard.

On 20 September 2012, Lynch brutally described the UK situation:

“Safer businesses are more productive, not least because of the management time taken up when some poor sod has to be scraped off the floor. And let’s not forget inspections focus on occupational health as well, meaning employees have more chance of working without developing illnesses.”

The sad part of this statement is that productivity advantage of safer businesses has been known by governments for some time but that the wave of red tape attacks was politically stronger.

Some Australian States are on an extreme austerity drive even though the Australian economy is nowhere near as troubled as that of the United Kingdom.  These strategies usually call for across-the-board percentage reductions in costs.  This generality is a major problem as productivity and cost-effectiveness of specific organisations is not considered.  Untargeted cuts penalise the successful and the inefficient – the current experience of the Health and Safety Executive. Continue reading “Lessons for Australia from UK assault on OHS red tape”

Shit safety campaign launched in Australia

On September 5 2012, the Tasmania Minister for Industrial Relations, David O’Byrne launched a new campaign to encourage businesses to prepare for new Work Health and Safety laws.  The name of the campaign is “OH S…”.

O’Byrne’s media release explains the campaign:

“OH S… is the understandable gut reaction of any worker, manager or business owner when they hear there’s been an accident in the workplace… This campaign uses that first reactionary moment to try and promote how workplaces can be proactive on work health and safety.”

It is reminiscent of the famous line by Bill Cosby when describing a car accident and a driver’s reaction:

“First you say it, then you do it”.

The wisdom of this campaign is questionable.  There could be a range of responses created in the media by various comedians, all to do with safety and shit, such as:

“Make the job safe, move that shit”.

“Don’t be a shithead with safety”.

“The top three priorities of this company is Safety First, Safety Second and Safety Turd”.

Bringing shit into the concept of safety is a challenge and could offend some of the old-guard that sees OHS as sacrosanct.  But it could be that such an advertising strategy for workplace safety is necessary.   Continue reading “Shit safety campaign launched in Australia”

“Loose” workplace bullying statistics published

Workplace bullying policy matters are at their peak in Australia this week as public hearings occur at the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment inquiry into workplace bullying. Several experts on the prevention of workplace bullying will be appearing at these hearings but the topicality also allows others to release or promote data on workplace bullying.

Safety Consultants Australia (SCA) released a “blueprint” on Safety Hazard: Workplace Bullying in March 2012 that has been recirculated this week. The blueprint is a useful example of the care that needs to be taken when summarising data on workplace bullying.

SCA states, IN VERY BIG LETTERS, that the Productivity Commission estimated that

“Workplace Bullying costs Australian employers between $6 – $36 billion every year.”

SCA has released a flyer with the same information in EVEN BIGGER LETTERS however the Productivity Commission’s report Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Occupational Health & Safety (2010)  states on page 279:

“Estimates of the prevalence and cost of psychosocial hazards vary considerably. For example, using international studies as a guide, estimates of the annual cost of workplace bullying to employers and the economy in Australia ranged from $6 billion to $36 billion (in 2000).” Continue reading ““Loose” workplace bullying statistics published”

WorkSafe’s approach to marketing safety to teenagers revealed

Two articles in two days concerning OHS advertising may seem a little much but in 2008 Australia’s Advertising Standards Board (ASB) received complaints about one of the graphic ads used by WorkSafe Victoria at that time.  WorkSafe had identified a need to shock teenagers about workplace risks but some television viewers found them disturbing.

WorkSafe Young Workers Campaign

A couple of the complaints reflect some of the comments posted by readers to the SafetyAtWorkBlog.

“These ads may be appropriate for industrial oh&s training programs, but not for the general community, for whom they serve no purpose other than to shock and horrify.”

“I was injured at work were I lost my entire eye ball, I think work place safety is very important, to spread the word is vital, however the scene of burnt flesh is going to upset and remind people who were injured at work the horror they suffered, I know I can’t watch it, and I wasn’t burnt.”

The ASB Case Report includes details of focus group surveys undertaken by WorkSafe Victoria in developing the advertisements.  These details illustrate some of the marketing thinking of WorkSafe. Continue reading “WorkSafe’s approach to marketing safety to teenagers revealed”

WorkSafe Victoria tries humour in safety advertising

For the last few weeks WorkSafe Victoria has been running new injury prevention advertisements based on a game show theme of playing the odds on injuring a worker.  The curiosity of this campaign is that humour and a little bit of shame has been employed to communicate.

It is refreshing for an OHS regulator to use humour in the aim of improving workplace safety particularly as this attempt avoids the slapstick humour that has been tried in the past by several safety organisations.  Workplace injuries are not a laughing matter but a gentle humour can be used to prick the conscience of those who have safety obligations.

Conversations with OHS peers on these ads has shown a perplexity over these ads.  Those who have established a public face or a reputation in the safety field are unsure whether laughing or, at the least, being amused is appropriate.  There is a fine line between mockery and amusement so hesitation is understandable. Continue reading “WorkSafe Victoria tries humour in safety advertising”

FindTheBest seriously misjudges on its data services for workplace deaths and injuries

Many organisations are beginning to assess their performance in occupational health and safety (OHS), mostly through spreadsheet graphics and lead and lag indicators.  These “databases” provide comparisons of activity with the hope of showing positive progress on safety.  FindTheBest.com has been building comparison websites for some time and has applied their mystical Web2.0 algorithms to workplace safety data from the United States in its FindTheData website.  It has several sites that may be of interest to OHS professionals – Work Injuries and Death and Dangerous Jobs.

Dangerous Jobs allows you to select the occupational categories you are interested in and then compare their statistical data.  For instance, comparing Farmers and Ranchers to Structural Steel Workers shows an annual fatality rate of 39.7 to 30.3 based on hours, respectively.  These comparisons are based on data from the United States Department of Labor statistics.  But the question on the comparison is so what?  What benefit can be gained by comparing these two sets of data?  None, as far as I can see.

The glossary for Dangerous Jobs lists the top couple of popular comparisons as

  • Top 7 Most Dangerous Jobs in US
  • Police and sheriff’s patrol officers vs. Electricians

The first has curiosity value but the second is reminiscent of the adolescent (or drunk) speculation on who would win in a fight between Darth Vader and Gigantor?  Pointless speculation that sounds like it could result in some interesting information.  Just maybe.  Perhaps. Continue reading “FindTheBest seriously misjudges on its data services for workplace deaths and injuries”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2024. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd