The 2nd (annual) psych health and safety conference commenced with what was almost a summary of the current play in the workplace psychosocial/psychological sphere. This year, the venue is bigger, and the number of delegates in person and online appears much bigger. But the most significant feature is the blending of different disciplines under the psych tag.
Rob Briner kicked it off
Two prominent experts on psychosocial hazards at work, featuring at the Psych Health and Safety Conference later this week in Sydney, Mary Ann Baynton and I. David Daniels, responded to my question to them (and other speakers) listed in the title above.
Mary Ann Baynton’s response first:
“The two most persistent barriers to employers preventing psychosocial hazards are a misunderstanding of what is required and the belief that it would cost too much in terms of time and effort….”
Over the next week or so, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be focusing on the issue of psychosocial hazards and psychological risks at work, as we cover the Psych Health and Safety Conference in Sydney. These risks and hazards are the most pressing topic in occupational health and safety (OHS) at the moment, with an increased demand for solutions from workers and the community, as well as heightened expectations for regulatory compliance. I apologise for this intense focus, but I welcome your comments and participation.
I will start by posing this question:
“The Australian approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Human Resources and Work Health and Safety have been siloed in the past. Are the approaches getting closer? Is there more cooperation between the two or are the two disciplines’ aims still too different?”
Recently, New Zealand’s Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke Van Velden, was interviewed for almost half an hour by Jack Tame on her government’s proposed changes to occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. The interview was informative and entertaining, as it explained some aspects of the OHS changes, but also showcased a Minister who was uncomfortable with being questioned.
Sometimes you need to stop what you’re doing and reflect. This could relate to life, work, values or more. I was invited to talk to the Central Safety Group (CSG) this week on “Challenging Mainstream OHS Views”, so I stopped, thought, and jotted down some personal opinions to discuss. It was a helpful exercise.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) podcasts are increasingly common. They are reaching peak-podcast just as peak-blog may have done a few years ago, BUT the increased attention to workplace psychological health continues to create more. A new, short, informative, and useful one is “Inside Safety” with lawyers Steve Bell and Nerida Jessup.
Currently, workplace politics in New South Wales are wrapped up in arguing about changes to the way workers’ compensation covers those with a psychological injury. The justification, as it was with similar issues in Victoria last year, is that the growth in workplace mental health claims apparently jeopardises the viability of the workers’ compensation scheme. These arguments exclude the long-term occupational health and safety (OHS) solution to the problem, and it is not as if governments were unaware of this emerging financial challenge.
