Psychological injuries that happen at work or are caused by work may need to be notified to occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators in some Australian jurisdictions. Recently, an organisation associated with prominent Australian businessman Andrew Forrest underwent the notification experience and received an improvement notice.
I am not immune to the worries and potential of using Artificial intelligence (AI) tools in my occupational health and safety (OHS) work and writings. As with millions of others, my relationship is a work in progress.
I have long used the transcription software Otter.ai to transcribe short interviews. It remains less accurate than human transcription, but it remains useful. One of its new AI tools is that it can analyse all of the conversations recorded through Otter.ai or uploaded to it for transcribing. I have years of recordings at OHS conferences, seminars, webinars, and interviews, so I asked this question:
“Why does the Human Resources profession struggle with preventing psychological and psychosocial harm?”
This was its response:
Reasonably practicable control measures are most often determined by the courts during a prosecution. Every other determination of reasonably practicable in occupational health and safety (OHS) compliance is an educated guess by employers. However, this does not always have to be the case, as a short excerpt from the Annual Report of New Zealand’s Ombudsman illustrates.
Pages 52 and 53 summarise a complaint made to the Chief Ombudsman questioning WorkSafeNZ’s handling of an investigation into a:
Psychosocial hazards are gaining attention online, but the pace of change remains sloth-like. Two recent online events provide good, basic occupational health and safety (OHS) and organisational psychology information and some insight into the slow pace.
Australia’s news media is reporting a shocking report about the workplace culture of parts of the Nine Entertainment organisation – bullying, sexual harassment, abuse of power – all the elements of organisational culture that can be found in any company if one scratches the surface. Scratching is one of the aims of the occupational health and safety (OHS) discipline – investigating the causes of harm at the source.
Employers struggle to know if their businesses comply with the local occupational health and safety (OHS) or work health and safety (WHS) laws. They always have and, likely, always will. Employers are hungry for certainty and are often annoyed with OHS advisers who refuse to give a definitive answer to the question in this article’s title.
In the 1990s, particularly in Victoria, there was almost a frenzy for a simple audit tool developed through WorkSafe Victoria called SafetyMAP. It disappeared well over a decade ago, but my Goddess, it was popular, and small business operators especially wanted it. Even when its effectiveness was questionable.
When you fail to speak in support of occupational health and safety (OHS) or, perish the thought, speak against OHS, you must be speaking in support of profit. Some would say the connection is not that simple, but really, it is.
Employers’ critical concern is, “Can I afford OHS?” This question shows a misunderstanding of OHS’s role in business success and continuity. The question would not occur if OHS had been integrated into the design of the business, its operations, and profit forecasts. OHS costs a lot more when it needs to be retrofitted to an existing company.
