I have been writing about concussion and CTE prevention in professional sports, especially the Australian Football League (AFL), for a while. The current controversy in Australia is concerning a risk waiver. This debate should generate interest in workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety. This guest post from Eric Windholz (there have been others) is a major part of that conversation catalyst.
I want to be optimistic about workplace mental health in the lead-up to my reporting on a sihgnificant psychological/psychososcial conference in September – PHSCon. But reading the newspapers demoralises me, as burnout stories framed through HR ignore OHS obligations and preventive design. I suppose I could eliminate the psychological hazard by stopping reading the newspapers (like many others have), but then how would I know what others think about occupational health and safety (OHS) and what is being said and advised to employers and the community?
Recently, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers contained an article called “Hidden cost of our burnout culture” – a typical example of a Human Resources (HR) and leadership-based perspective. Burnout stories framed through HR ignore OHS obligations and preventive design.
By 2013, the debate over workplace bullying in Australia had moved from outrage to regulatory detail. That is often the stage where social reform either matures or dies. The draft code on preventing and responding to workplace bullying being developed at that time attracted submissions from industry and employer associations, many of which were troubling. The concern was not simply that business groups opposed a code. It was that several appeared to miss the code’s central purpose of preventing psychological harm to people at work.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
Australian business media, especially the Australian Financial Review (AFR), continues to oppose the Victorian (Labor) government’s intention to make working from home (WFH) a formal right and entitlement. Every week, the mainstream media report on the latest research that criticises the move on the basis of productivity impacts, restrictions on career progress and other business negatives; occasionally, very occasionally, some positives are reported – better mental health, reduced living and commuter costs, flexibility for family duties and obligations.
Workplace bullying has a habit of becoming visible only after harm has already occurred. In 2010, the 2006 death of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock became the point at which many Australians first understood that bullying at work was not merely a Human Resources (HR) irritant, or a personality weakness, or one of those unfortunate things that happens in a rough workplace somewhere else. It was an occupational health and safety (OHS) issue.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
There seems to be an increase in democratic socialism in the United States. Socialism-based principles, the “common good,” the Green New Deal, limitarianism, post-neoliberalism, and others are being discussed with increasing seriousness. Underpinning these ideas is respect for humans (and others), a push to understand the limits and potential of humans, and a countering of the idea that humans are primarily “units of labour” and that their only value is determined by their productivity. Perhaps it is time to engage directly with, and politely challenge, these entrenched business approaches.
Whenever Mariana Mazzucato publishes a new book, she appears in the press everywhere as part of book tours and promotions. Her latest book, The Common Good Economy, is likely to be as influential on government and international policymakers as her other books have been. Australia’s Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, pays close attention to her perspectives. These perspectives relate to the management of occupational health and safety (OHS) because they present a different or tweaked sense of corporate morality, under which workers should be safe and healthy.
This article is not a review of the Common Good Economy book, although it is very good. Instead, I compare Mazzucato’s approach on work to Professor Michael Quinlan‘s take on precarity.
