Category: business

The demographic challenges facing OHS management

The best OHS advice, or rather innovative thinking, is frequently coming from those experts from outside the traditional OHS background.

A case in point could be a presentation made by prominent Australian demographer, Bernard Salt, at one of the many Safe Work Australia Week events in South Australia.   Salt provided enough information about population changes that OHS professionals and regulators became uneasy about many of the challenges that they will face in the next few decades.

Consider yourself how the following facts provided by Bernard Salt will affect the way you manage safety in your workplace:

  • A ‘demographic fault line’ occurs in Australia from 2011, when the baby boomers start retiring.
  • More older workers will be in a position to retire than there will be younger workers to replace them.
  • Older workers will stay at their jobs for longer rendering them susceptible to body stressing and similar injuries.
  • Many older workers will scale down their work to a few days or one day a week, and as a result may not be fully attuned to the workplace safety risks.
  • To top up the Australian workforce (and tax base) a substantial migrant intake will be required.
  • These prospective workers (and entrepreneurs) will need to be educated in the Australian OHS culture.

If the OHS profession is to truly be “proactive”, it is these sorts of forecasts that should be anticipated.

Kevin Jones

Australian AGMs mention workplace deaths

Australia’s corporations are busy releasing their annual reports in October 2009.  The outgoing managing director and CEO of Boral Limited, Rod Pearse, provided his comments on the company’s safety performance to shareholders on 28 October 2009.

“Since demerger [January 2000], Boral’s safety outcomes have delivered steady year-on-year improvements and compare well with both ASX100 and industry benchmarks. Employee lost time injury frequency rate of 1.8 and percent hours lost of 0.06 have both improved by 80% since 2000 and are better than those of our competitors in like industries and in the top quartile of companies in the ASX100.”

Boral is, according to the executive statements, “a resource based manufacturing company with low cost manufacturing operations.” Continue reading “Australian AGMs mention workplace deaths”

OHS – time to grow up or get locked in the attic

In OHS law in Australia, the employer/employee relationship is dead or, at least, coughing up blood.  OHS law is to be based on “people conducting a business or undertaking” (PCBUs have been discussed briefly elsewhere) and not a worker working in a workplace, even though the recently changed industrial law, the Fair Work Act, maintains this relationship.

This morning in a staff seminar at a large multinational business in Australia a regional CEO revealed a considerable level of financial detail to his employees, much more so than any of the staff had seen before.  His reason for this was that he was talking with “adults”.  He employs adults and expects his workers to act like adults.  He also said that he cannot understand why, for so long, employees have been treated as children or act like children.

Past occupational health and safety law seems to reflect this relationship.  Employees have expected someone else to fix a problem because the employer has the principal responsibility for everyone’s safety.  The employee has had a legislative responsibility to look after their own safety and that of others for decades but it was rarely emphasised and only occasionally did it appear as a reason for a prosecution.

To be simplistic for a moment, parents set the house rules for when children are in the  house.  As children grow, the rules are amended and new rules are created as the child becomes more mobile, curious and intelligent.  In many circumstances, the children are given a fair degree of flexibility in meeting the house rules but every so often the rules need to be enforced and children reminded of them.  A penalty of some sort is applied.

At a WorkSafe seminar on 26 October 2009 in relation to the proposed Safe Work Bill, there was a tone to the panelists’ comments that seemed to be calling for a new “maturity” in OHS management.  It was as if the last thirty years has been the learning phase where the house rules have been clearly established and the children have reached a point where the house rules are to be self-policed.  It could also be put that the children are expected to extend these rules to any guests to the house.  But the analogy of a house as a workplace and business should stop there before it becomes silly.

What the new/proposed OHS laws are looking for is a responsible approach to staying safe.  The emphasis on “reasonably practicable” in the legislation is a plea and an expectation for people in a workplace to behave reasonably.  The impression is that if the test in law is to be of a “reasonable person” then the OHS law should be encouraging people in a workplace, whatever their status, to act reasonably.

In short, the Australian Government is asking businesses and workers to “grow up”.  The test will be who chooses to be sitting at the family meal table and who becomes the mad uncle locked in the attic that everyone feels embarrassed by.

Kevin Jones

Australian Standards and OHS harmonisation

This morning in Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria conducted a three-hour seminar on the harmonisation of Australia’s OHS laws.  The speakers and panelists were John Merritt of WorkSafe, Tracey Browne of the Australian Industry Group and Cathy Butcher of the Victorian Trades Hall.  Tripartism at its best.

The large auditorium was filled with hundreds of attendees, very few were the familiar faces of the OHS professionals who can often dominate such events.

A question was asked to the panel about the application of the Australian Standard for Plant.  The question was, basically, will the Australian Standards be referred to within the upcoming OHS regulations?  The panel unanimously said no.

This was the clearest indication yet that the rumour about Australian Standards not being given legislative legitimacy through legislation is correct.  Tracey Browne however provided the rationale.  She said

“The important thing is that as soon as we incorporate an Australian Standard in a regulation, we create a whole different legislative status of something that was never designed to be a safety regulation….

This doesn’t change the fact, though, that it is the “state of knowledge” and when you look at what you are doing in relation to what is reasonably practicable, you need to take into account all the things you know or ought to know.  So if you are [for instance] bringing plant into Australia, and that is your business, then you need to know what the Australian Standards are and make sure that’s part of your consideration.”

Standards Australia is undergoing a considerable rethink due to a big loss of funds and in response to the changing regulatory structure in all sorts of industry and financial sectors.  The challenge is acknowledged by the CEO of Standards Australia, John Tucker ,when he discusses a “new way of operating“.

Kevin Jones

Asbestos and corruption as a case study

Australia has been a major supplier of asbestos to the world for decades.  It has also been a major corporate beneficiary of the revenue for the sale of this poisonous material.

The latest situation in Melbourne is a good example of all that is wrong with asbestos and worker exposure.  According to reports in The Age newspapers in late October 2009, a property developer has allegedly offered $A57,000 to a safety officer on a hospital redevelopment project, allegedly, in order to turn a blind eye to the issue of asbestos at the site.  According to the newspaper reports, some in the industry have described this payment as a bribe.

In February 2006, the developer received a report from an independent consultant advising that asbestos be removed prior to demolition.  The developer removed most but not all.  It is in this patch of remaining asbestos that two workers dug through the concrete with a jack hammer and concrete saw, generating considerable dust from the concrete and the asbestos.  The workers were not wearing any protective masks.

Australia is dealing with the corporate immorality of James Hardie Industries, although there is much more that can be down.  Wittenoom is closed and has almost disappeared.  Companies are required to have an asbestos register for their properties.  Tasmania is to become free of asbestos by 2020.  There is a lot of activity, so much that the control of this poisonous material should not be handled in an ad hoc manner.  Governmental vision is required to commit to the removal of asbestos and the clean-up of contaminated sites.

It is an easy moral call for governments – the toxicity of asbestos is indisputable, the public health risks are known.  But it will cost.  Governments are in a similar bind as with climate change policy – decades of prosperity at the same time as not considering the health legacy of that wealth.

There is no such thing as an emissions trading scheme for asbestos.  It is suspected that, if at all, the government will need to apply surcharges or tax incentives for companies to support any initiative.  This always flows back to the consumers paying ultimately.  Anti-asbestos advocates can rightly feel angry at the fact that companies have benefited greatly from knowingly selling a toxic material, and  the same companies are likely to benefit again through the clean-up.  This may simply be the price we must pay for living in a society based on capitalism.  God help the new “capitalist” nations like China.

Kevin Jones

SafetyAtWorkBlog hopes to finalise a podcast with journalist and author, Matt Peacock, by the end of this week.  Peacock is the author of Killer Company

Not all employers are the same

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported the umbrage that the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) felt about executive accountability, particularly in relation to OHS legislation.  On 25 October 2009 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) provided an example that should stop generalisations about employer associations , at least for a little while.

Below are extracts of the significant statements made by ACCI and attributed to its CEO,  Peter Anderson:

“Safe Work Australia Week [is] an opportunity for employers and employees to step back and review their approach to ensuring safety within their workplace.

It is essential that at regular intervals time is taken to step back and take a fresh look at the bigger picture of workplace safety. Safe Work Australia Week presents an ideal opportunity to do so.

Company Boards and Senior Executive teams should regularly review their organisation’s strategy, culture, systems and commitment to workplace safety and make adjustments where needed. Safe workplaces are driven from the top.

However, managers, supervisors and all employees also need to take individual accountability for workplace safety. Workplaces with the best safety records have a culture of clear and shared accountability for safety from the first year apprentice to the Chief Executive.   This is built on the empowerment and obligation of all employees to openly discuss workplace safety, report hazards and incidents, and collaboratively find the most appropriate ways of managing risks.

It is important that in the midst of the current debate about harmonised OHS legislation, the focus on day-to-day workplace safety does not slip.   Legislation is not going to drive further improvements in OHS outcomes in Australia – people’s actions will.   Governments and industry must look for ways to further provide small business in particular with the tools, information, advice and encouragement to effectively manage the challenges and complexities faced in ensuring workplace safety.”

The risk with any national week of special day is that the focus is on a specific moment rather than seeing the issue being raised as one that is relevant for an entire year.  This is very much the problem with Safe Work Australia Week but it is not alone.

Significantly, ACCI makes a clear statement about executives being involved with the management of safety in their workplaces – the attitude and approach of “proactivity” the OHS model legislation is aiming at.

Equally significantly, ACCI discusses the individual accountability of everyone in a company for OHS.  It specifies the elements in support of accountability

  • open discussion or (OHS regulators would say) consultation;
  • hazard and incident reporting; and
  • collaboration.

ACCI is on familiar turf when it says legislation should not be the motivation for change on OHS but employers and other commercial organisations must realise that self-regulation has never been more of an unpopular concept than in the wake of the global financial crisis.  No one can trust business to do the right thing by shareholders, investors or employees.  They want government to make business accountable.

The capitalist ideology says that the wealth created by business is shared with the masses through social and financial structures.  ACCI is trying to rebuild the capitalist structure into a nice, friendly, warm and comforting capitalism because if it cannot, the government will impose social obligations on them.  If the ACCI and other commercial bodies can do this, it will be impressive but the question can be asked why capitalism became so ruthless in the first place and did various employer associations advise companies to act cautiously and keep capitalism in line with the social obligations everyone has?

Workplace safety is an easy indication of the heartlessness of capitalists – increase profits by rushing production and encouraging shortcuts in safety; or not taking the time to train workers well enough that they can work without being harmed.  But if capitalists are willing to try again and NOT follow the same pathways that have been shown to lead to economic destruction, then they should have our support.

Kevin Jones

Awards nights and integrity

Industry awards are very important as they reflect special achievements in professions and, more broadly, the community.  But what makes awards so special is that they are hard to get.  This is the reason that the Nobel Prizes are so treasured (barring this year’s controversy over the Peace Prize for President Obama).

This week in Australia, there will be several awards events for those who have achieved special things in workplace safety.  There are several issues that need to be borne in mind during this “award season” and for other awards in general.

Judging Panel and Criteria

Any organisation should publish the membership of the judging panel.  Many do not and often justify this as reducing the likelihood of judges’ decisions being interfered with.  Any organisation that claims this has the wrong judges.  If the judges were people of integrity, they would operate within an ethical framework that would make them impervious to influence.  That should be why they are selected as judges.

The criteria for selecting winners in various categories should also be made available just as the criteria for eligibility is made available to nominees.  Everyone from safety professionals to athletes select categories that they have the best chance of winning.

Some nominees have coaches to assist them, some use past awards judges.  One Australian awards process not so long ago felt there was no issue with having a current judge assist a nominee.  This was dubious at the time but when the judge/coach joined the winner on the stage, the conflict was there for everyone to see.  Sadly the organisers did not see this.

Nominee feedback

Winners have a fairly clear idea why they have won but good awards event provide a critique of all nominees so that, if they want to renominate int he future, areas of improvement are identified.

Very few organisations do this which makes the losers feel like losers rather than those who were not quite good enough to win – big difference.  If feedback is not provided, a loser can feel bitter and express that bitterness against the organisation hosting the event.  Just as, for instance, young dancers may be turned off a potential career by one poorly-worded criticism, constructive criticism can keep a dancer in that career and maintain a level of confidence.

Why have certain categories

Many awards nights have too many categories and categories that are ill-defined.  A principal reason for lots of categories is so that the organisers can attract lots of sponsors and lots of  dollars.  Any awards night, particularly those of a specific industry or profession, that has dozens of awards will be too long, too boring and, quickly, irrelevant.

Eligibility

Recently one award winner in an Australian awards ceremony acceptance speech, expressed pride that her organisation had won the same award for the third year running.  HUH?  Why were they eligible each year for the same award for the same management program?  This severely hurt the credibility of that particular award category and placed a cloud on all other awards at that night.

Eligibility needs to be sensible and this relates to the need for a detailed criteria mentioned above.

If an organisation wins an award for one thing, they should be ineligible for the same award for a couple of years.  This allows for the development of alternative approaches and creative approaches to the same category.  This will lead to a richer and more diverse industry or profession.

If a winner wants to renominate after the ineligibility period, their system should have changed and improved so that the award would acknowledge this change.

It is understood that the award decision-making and judging process should be secret or else the surprise of nomination and winning is lost.  But there is also a need to establish a credibility to the awards by displaying the integrity of the judging process.  The best awards are those that have an established integrity and are not just for marketing purposes or revenue generation.

Kevin Jones

SafetyAtWorkBlog has several pieces concerning awards.  Please use the search facility to the right of this article for other articles and perspectives.

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2025. 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