business – Page 238 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Is OHS a profession?

There are some in the safety profession who question whether OHS practitioners have the right to describe ourselves as professionals. Comparisons have been made to the medical profession where one is either a doctor or not, a nurse or not, a medical practitioner or not. This is an unfair comparison as the medical profession has a history going back centuries. As a regulated profession, the history is shorter but that it is a profession is unarguable.

A profession focusing on safety is a recent development, only a couple of decades old. I would mark the new approach to safety from Lord Robens but others may take it from Australian OHS legislation in the mid-1980s. (An argument could be made for the beginning to be from the increase in safety engineering in the 1960’s and maybe even Ralph Nader’s safety activism). The safety profession is still embryonic.

The added challenge is that additional hazards and social safety issues seem to be appearing much faster than happened decades ago, as manufacturing processes change much quicker and society applies more psychosocial hazards in a work context.

Maybe it is not yet a profession but it is becoming one and perhaps we need to focus on the journey more than on the result. Business and legal concerns have evolved just as rapidly as our approaches to OHS and becoming a profession is more complex than it was previously. The level of business regulation, government oversight and reporting has never seemed higher.

Previously business and employers could be trusted in some business areas. In the early 21^st century trust has evaporated.

One element of the comparison between the OHS profession and medicine is particularly useful to consider. It is now an accepted practice that if a serious health matter is diagnosed we seek a second opinion. We don’t seek a second opinion from safety advisers even though that “profession” is far less regulated than medicine. That seems an absurd business practice to me.

For a primer on what is meant by a profession, Wikipedia is a good place to start. It’s not authoritative but it is free and always a good place to start.

Unacceptable levels of death at Australian mines

In The Australian on 28 August 2008 was an article about the Australian Workers Union wanting to strengthen its industrial presence in the mining communities of the Pilbara region. Nothing surprising in that but the spur for this latest move was the death on 25 August of a 29-year-old worker in the Yandi mine workshop owned by BHP Billiton. The company acknowledged the fatality a media release.

The company has had several recent deaths in its facilities. According to a report on 30 July 2008:

“A 52-year-old Port Hedland man was conducting maintenance work on a scissor lift at Port Hedland when it fell on him at 1300 AEST on Tuesday, a police spokeswoman said.”

CEO Marius Klopper admitted on 20 August 2008 that BHP Billiton has had 11 fatalities so far in 2008. He is quoted as saying:

“The fatalities are difficult to talk about without getting emotional. The event that really shook us was that we had a helicopter crash where basically a pilot flew a helicopter into terrain and we had five fatalities. That was a truly tragic event and would be the single biggest event that we’ve had.”

“I think historically, we probably have reduced our fatality rates over time. It varies certainly from year to year but unfortunately we still have multiple fatalities every year in this business, which is something that we’ve got to continue to work on.”

Klopper’s comments received minimal media coverage outside of Western Australia. Perhaps that was because the CEO made those comments at the same time as announcing his company’s record profit of almost $A18 billion.

Senior executive – leave of absence

Regularly glossy business magazines and newspapers focus on the CEO or senior corporate executive who has decided to take a year or so off in their middle age. These profiles are often accompanied by an image of the executive casually dressed standing in the shallows of a beach on a sunny day.

The glossy profiles are annoying because they promote the idea that one must work excessively long hours and amass considerable wealth before stopping suddenly for a period of time, rather than promoting a balanced approach to workload and career that allows for adequate leisure. Good OHS management would advocate adequate leave throughout one’s working life to allow for a reduced risk of health problems, to minimise stress and to allow for a good amount of family time.

Too often high-profile corporate managers, and particularly politicians, need to resign to “spend more time with the family” – that’s if kids recognise them and the family dog doesn’t attack the intruder. The phrase quoted above is quickly becoming PR shorthand to cover a large range of matters.

In the Australian Financial Review on 21 August 2008, it was reported that the Asia Pacific CEO of Goodman Group, David van Aanholt, is taking a six-month sabbatical “to spend more time with his family”. This could be corporate spin but taking it as meant, Mr van Aanholt should be congratulated for sacrificing some corporate time for the benefit of the bigger picture. The article says that he intends to return to the company because of the long and strong relationship he has with the company and its founder.

Barbara Pocock, in “the Work/Life Collision” discusses a possible option of taking a pay rise in time rather than money, sort of a non-monetary salary sacrifice. She says that this concept has not taken off in the US, where it was first proposed, but felt it could work in Australia. Of course this requires the quantum leap in understanding the OHS benefits of regular leave and sensible workload expectations.

Contributors wanted

SafetyAtWorkBlog has received a lot of compliments since it began in Janury 2008 and I am pleased at the increased reach of the blog and the variety of regular readers. To keep the content fresh, I am looking for people with strong opinions on workplace-related topics to register as contributors.

You made need a WordPress account but as these are free and very easy to set-up, I hope you won’t mind. You can open an account at http://wordpress.com/

If you think that you have the time to provide, at least, one post each week, please contact me, Kevin Jones, at jonesk99 (at) gmail.com (excuse the spam avoiodance email address)

Australian CEOs and workplace safety

One of the tasks I have in my consultancy is assisting the Safety Institute of Australia to promote their Safety In Action conferences. As part of this I have been able to provide some videos from the May 2008 conference. The videos are excerpts from the presentations of four of the chief executive officers and company directors who spoke of day one of the conference about their experiences with workplace safety issues at board level.

One speaker is Dr Ziggy Switkowski, current chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and former CEO of Telstra Corporation. Dr Switkowski’s video is the longest and possibly the most interesting. His manner is relaxed and chatty as he builds on some of the comments of the former speaker, Jerry Ellis.

: Peter McMorrow

Peter McMorrow, managing director of Leighton Contractors, was perhaps the most instructional in terms of safety management. I have written briefly about his full presentation before. In this video, he talks about his early engineering days, how he went clay pigeon shooting with a shotgun and hard hats and how he was too close to an explosive charge. These tales contrasted well with his presentation of contemporary safety standards.

Glenn Henson of ExxonMobil speaks about accountability and the human role in safety, and Colin Blair, deputy CEO of Standards Australia, discusses how experienced a near miss in his early days as a young engineer.

Each of these speakers were asked about what motivated their interest in workplace safety. These casual introductions to their main presentations reminded us in the audience that early work experiences, intense or humourous, do provide a structure or shadow to how senior managers in major corporations approach safety.

Until the end of August 2008, the videos will only be accessible at www.siaconference.com.au to those who sign up for a regular conference newsletter.

Who manages safety – employers or inspectors?

Over the last few days at the Tasmanian inquest into the death of Larry Knight, several geotechnical consultants and experts have been going through their reports to Beaconsfield Mine management. These assessment reports were undertaken before the collapse that caused Larry Knight’s death. The impression from media reports is that mine management listened to, or read, the recommendations and made a decision. That decision seems to have not given the technical advice the weight that hindsight now shows was insufficient but hindsight does that and Coroners understand this.

Also safety decisions are made by the employer in consultation with their workforce and external experts, where necessary. Beaconsfield Mine management did this. The decision to mine on that fateful day obviously proved wrong but perhaps the decision was understandable.

The Australian on 12 August 2008 reported that senior technical consultant Frans Basson admitted that the mine was technically “in breach of his written recommendation to management”. I found this extraordinary as “breach” is a term more often applied to when a rule is broken. It seems that the mine management chose not take on the recommendation of a consultant. That happens all the time but to give the decision more significance than this is, perhaps, a little unfair. Let’s hope this was lawyer’s hyperbole.

How to describe the comments by former Mt Lyell engineering supervisor and ex-parliamentarian, Peter Schulze is more of a challenge. Inaccurate is probably the most generous term. At a Tasmanian Legislative Council committee on 13 August 2008, Peter Schulze criticised “all these experts who pontificate with the benefit of hindsight” about mine accidents. Okay, the wording is extreme but he makes a similar point to mine above.

He also echoes some of the recent criticisms of the OHS regulator in Tasmania, Workplace Standards. By inverting some of his comments reported in The Advocate on 14 August 2008, he believes that current inspectors are under-skilled in the mining sector and under-paid and that there are not enough. I would support him in his calls for additional enforcement resources but he is confused over the role of the inspectorate.

The primary responsibility for safety in a workplace is held by the employer – the controller of the workplace and main beneficiary of its productivity. Peter Schulze says that

“The inspectorate tends to isolate itself from accidents and comes in to blame the company … rather than being a party (to safety procedures and checks) and accepting some responsibility.”

Why on earth should a government department accept any responsibility for the operations of a privately-run business when there is legislation that states the responsibility rests with the employer?

Peter sees the system as being adversarial. There are clear roles for the differing elements in a workplace but conflict is resolved through negotiation, consultation and resolution. An adversarial climate in a workplace indicates a dysfunctional workplace but this does not mean the regulatory system is at fault. Safety management systems are a systematic management of a workplace with the aim of improving safety. Management is the key and this rests with the employer.

What New South Wales unions need to give up for harmony’s sake

Gerard Phillips, a partner in the Middletons law firm, wrote in the 7 August 2008 edition of the Australian Financial Review about the belligerence of the trade union movement in New South Wales in relation to the harmonisation of OHS Laws in Australia.

He addresses two legal barriers to harmonisation that he believes should end. In New South Wales unions have the legislative right to prosecute safety breaches. Gerard argues that harmonisation won’t be achieved without the unions relinquishing this right.

It has been clear for months that New South Wales will have to give up some elements of its OHS legislation in order to allow harmony. If it needs to save face, it would be lobbying now for enough resources at a national level to mount rigorous OHS enforcement.

As the Victorian OHS law is the front runner for a national OHS legal model, unions can take some solace from the extension of Victoria’s right of entry provisions that, prior to 1984, were tipped to generate industrial warfare In Victorian worksites. There were, at the time, many lawyers touting for business by recommending a tightening of paperwork, vetting all credentials before letting “them” on your site and accompanying “them” wherever they go.

Business achieved some important concessions with the registration of ARREOS (Authorised Representatives of Registered Employee Organisations) and a legal comeback if the ARREOS breach their authority, but an ARREO visit can still be daunting as WorkSafe found in February 2008.

WorkSafe advises that

An ARREO may enter a workplace during working hours to enquire into a suspected contravention of the OHS Act or regulations. The suspected contravention must relate to or affect the work being carried out by people who are:
• members of the registered employee organisation;
• subject to a certified agreement which binds the registered employee organisation; or
• eligible to be members of the registered employee organisation and are not subject to a certified agreement.

Gerard Phillips also can’t see why a union should have prosecutorial powers that no one else, other than the OHS regulator, has. Although he acknowledges that for enforcement to work any prosecutor must be “appropriately funded”. If the New South Wales government decided to reduce WorkCover NSW costs by sharing responsibility, I don’t think the economic benefit outweighed the political damage.

Phillips also sees no great difficulty in the onus of proof being held by the prosecutor. This authority is already in the legislation of Victoria and Western Australia with no complaints from the union movement that safety standards have declined as a result. The unions will need to give ground on having the onus rest with the business owner, and the employer groups will dance a gig when they do.

I remember Australia’s Royal Commission into the building industry where employer groups asserted, with little proof, that OHS is used by unions for purposes of industrial action. Terence Cole in his final report illustrated the accusations well.

“….employers have raised concerns about the unions raising industrial concerns under the guise of safety issues, and the adoption of the role of safety policemen by unions to the exclusion of the statutory inspectorates. The issue of safety is a constant source of friction in the workplace, either because it is not being appropriately addressed, monitored, enforced, or is being abused.”

This may or may not be true, however unions in New South Wales risk providing the truth that employer associations have long desired if they continue in holding onto a strong poker hand when the other players have changed to playing whist.

Category: business

Is OHS a profession?

Like this:

Unacceptable levels of death at Australian mines

Like this:

Senior executive – leave of absence

Like this:

Contributors wanted

Like this:

Australian CEOs and workplace safety

Like this:

Who manages safety – employers or inspectors?

Like this:

What New South Wales unions need to give up for harmony’s sake

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: