Bill Kelty believes employers have an absolute duty to provide workers with a safe, healthy workplace. He asked how any company can operate without giving occupational health and safety (OHS) its highest priority.
Already a member? Log in here
Category: business
The Rigged System Behind Workplace Injury and Illness
At the time of writing, it looks like the Democrats in the United States are smashing the Republicans and President Trump in the mid-term elections. One of the earliest winners was Democrat Jon Ossoff. His campaign strategy, focused on calling out presidential and political corruption, seems to have worked. This strategy of blunt honesty could be exported to Australia and applied in arguments about reducing work-related injuries and deaths.
Already a member? Log in here
Psychosocial Safety Is Becoming a Governance Test, Not a Wellbeing Program
Three recent legal commentaries reveal something important about the evolution of workplace health and safety. They address different issues, from board governance to sexual harassment investigations and cumulative psychosocial hazards, but they all point to the same conclusion: employers are running out of opportunities to treat psychological health as an individual problem. We may be at the start of a work revolution.
Already a member? Log in here
Real Work, Real Talk podcast
Michael Plowright and I enjoyed completing our 4th episode of the “Real Work, Real Talk” podcast. My background is occupational health and safety (OHS); Michael’s is consulting on workplace bullying and some Human Resources issues. These two disciplines need to talk with each other if employers are going to effectively manage psychological safety in their workplaces. We thought we should get things started.
Below is one review we have received:
“Safe Work, Real Talk is a coherent, engaging four-part podcast series that explores psychosocial hazards, leadership, workplace conflict, and organisational responsibility through the combined perspectives of OHS and HR.
While some episodes would benefit from stronger evidence, more workplace examples, and more debate between the hosts, the series succeeds through its authenticity, practical relevance, and willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, earning an overall rating of 8.5/10″
Episodes can be accessed at:
Stream SafetyAtWorkBlog | Listen to podcast episodes online for free on SoundCloud
SafetyAtWorkBlog – Podcast – Apple Podcasts
Safe Work, Real Talk at Working Well Together
Safe Work Australia’s Big Bet on an Expanded OHS System
The release of Safe Work Australia’s Best Practice review left me wondering whether Australian work health and safety policy has reached regulatory overreach, or whether it is finally catching up with the realities of contemporary work.
Much of the discussion has focused on the report’s individual recommendations. What interests me more is an assumption that seems to underlie almost every recommendation: that occupational health and safety (OHS) should become the nation’s principal framework for preventing workplace harm in all its forms, not merely physical and psychological injury.
Already a member? Log in here
Why don’t US employers focus on preventing psychosocial hazards?
Many Australian employers, managers and executives take inspiration from counterparts in the United States. When it comes to occupational mental health, they are looking in the wrong direction and could benefit from looking more locally. But there is merit in evaluating the US perspectives.
Below are responses provided by several Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents on my own PC to the question in this article’s title. There is considerable overlap in many, but I start off with the most confronting response, provided by the World Socialist Web Site‘s Socialism AI:
Continue reading “Why don’t US employers focus on preventing psychosocial hazards?”
Safe Work Australia’s Review and the Predictable Politics of OHS Change
The “Best Practice Review of the Model Work Health and Safety Laws” report released by Safe Work Australia (SWA) is a lot to digest. Summaries and initial analyses are already appearing on some LinkedIn and law firm posts, but the report needs careful consideration. The recommendations seem sound, but such things almost always trigger a knee-jerk reaction from business groups, driven by ideological objections and concerns about increased business costs. I suspect we will see some of this objection in the media over the next few days.
Already a member? Log in here