campaign – Page 23 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Targeting the most dangerous industries but not those with the most deaths

On 4 July 2011, WorkSafe Victoria released a media notice entitled “WorkSafe to target state’s most dangerous industries“. (The title of the media release currently available on-line has been changed from “dangerous” to “risky”.) Below are the industries that WorkSafe considers the most dangerous:

Food manufacturing and processing,
wood product manufacturing,
fabricated metal,
transport equipment manufacturing,
plastics and rubber manufacturing,
road transport,
warehousing and storage and
residential aged care services.

WorkSafe advised SafetyAtWorkBlog on 4 July, that these eight industries were chosen as the targets for an OHS enforcement blitz because in 2010 these sectors generated 7,075 workers’ compensation claims. 2,808 of the claims related to manual handling injuries. Continue reading “Targeting the most dangerous industries but not those with the most deaths”

Government must restructure to address the evolution of OHS

The UK government’s Health & Safety Executive is continuously countering poor decisions of local government that are being “blamed” on health and safety. Recently the Wimbledon tennis open joined the club of misrepresenting risk decisions as health and safety.

England has a unique tabloid journalism that has generated substantial confusion on the role and application of occupational health and safety laws. Most of the decisions being referred to as health and safety are really public liability concerns and this is where the risk management discipline enters the issue. Occupational Health and Safety has enlisted the risk management principles to provide a structure for business to assess risk, costs and benefits of working safely. However this has only worked when there was a clear delineation of workplace.

Over many years, OHS legislation has been allowed to broaden its remit from the shopfloor and factory fence to include those entering a workplace and visitors. It then grew to include the impacts that any work activity may be having on others.

In Australia, the new definition of a workplace is anywhere where work is undertaken. The OHS tentacles have penetrated all physical areas of society, although he police force has been struggling with this balance for years. There is nothing occupational about OHS anymore. In fact Australia will be dropping “occupational” from its Work Health and Safety legislation from 1 January 2012. There have been sound reasons for this expansion but we now have to live with the consequences. Continue reading “Government must restructure to address the evolution of OHS”

Farming federation calls for mandatory fitting of safety devices to quadbikes

On 12 June 2010, SafetyAtWorkBlog noted the spokesperson for the National Farmers Federation, Duncan Fraser, supporting the voluntary fitting of roll protection devices to quadbikes in specific circumstances. On 20 June 2011, the New South Wales Farmers Federation’s Industrial Relations Committee Chair Graham Morphett has spoken in favour of “the mandatory fitting of roll bars” to quad bikes.

This is an extraordinary blow to the quad bike manufacturers who are set against rollover protection structures (ROPS) or crush protection devices (CPDs) for quad bikes.

Morphett’s comments deserve a little more analysis.

“Quad bikes can be extremely unstable on uneven farm terrain. Manufacturers have a responsibility to improve the design of the vehicles to ensure their safety. No quad bike should be sold without a roll over bar,” he said

SafetyAtWorkBlog has criticised manufacturers for not developing new designs that counter, what some research has described as the propensity to rollover. Morphett echoes this position.

Perhaps more significantly Morphett believes that new quadbikes Continue reading “Farming federation calls for mandatory fitting of safety devices to quadbikes”

Quad bike poster distracts from the evidence

Not only are quadbike manufacturers resisting the inevitable, they have gone on the attack with posters being distributed that criticise the installation of crush protection devices (CPD)s, safety devices increasingly being recommended by safety advocates, farm safety specialists and government departments in Australia.

According The Weekly Times on 16 June 2011, Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Polaris and Kawasaki and others are promoting a safety message through the poster (pictured right). This position was hinted at in Dr Yossi Berger’s comments on a previous blog posting.

The major rural newspaper reports a curious position that may indicate that criticism of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) may be misplaced.

“FCAI motorcycle manager Rhys Griffiths said it was the manufacturers’ decision to put the posters up, and “we had no part in printing it”.

The FCAI was “yet to go public with our message other than to have the industry position paper available”.” [links added]

There is no mention of this poster campaign on any of the manufacturers’ website mentioned above.

The FCAI may claim not to gone “public” on this poster campaign but the industry position paper is, at first glance, damning of the roll bar options available. However a close reading of the industry paper on rollover protection structures shows a large number of equivocations and conditional statements. There also seem to be blanket conclusions from some comparisons of dissimilar ROPS.

The debate continues and seems to be evolving into the public relations arena. This is very unfortunate as the evidence, the issue of the safety of riders of quadbikes in the workplace, can become clouded by spin. Up to this point the arguments have been about the research evidence. The poster is an unhelpful distraction.

Kevin Jones

Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?

On 1 June 2011 the Australian television program 7PM Project ran an article about “Brodie’s Law” – an increase in the penalties for bullying and stalking. I was approached to be interviewed for the program due to my comments on this blog. I turned down the opportunity for a number of reasons, my time had already been committed to my family and filming did not fit that commitment but, more importantly, I am dubious about whether Brodie’s Law will have the deterrent effect that many hope for.

The 7PM Project approached an outspoken lawyer on the issue who refused to participate because he felt that his comments would not have fitted the approach favoured by the producer who contacted us. I had similar reservations. When I expressed my opinion about the lack of deterence, one producer acknowledged that this was a position expressed by almost all the people they had approached to participate.

The video of the 7PM Project segment is available online and begins around the 2 minute mark. Significantly occupational health and safety laws were not mentioned in the article. There was no mention of any of the OHS guidances on workplace bullying or of any of the regulator’s programs.

A workplace bullying expert of OHS professional would more likely have recited this definition or at least stressed the importance of repetition.

The speaker they chose for expert opinion on workplace bullying was Grant Brecht. Brecht was asked whether a definition of bullying exists. He answered that the definition relates to where psychological harm is possible. This is true but a crucial element of the definition of workplace bullying was missed in the discussion. According to WorkSafe Victoria:

“Bullying is repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety.” [emphasis added]

Brecht also mentioned the need for individuals to assert themselves in the face of bullying but a detailed look at Brodie Panlock’s case shows that she did assert herself and that she did approach other workers at the cafe for assistance and she did talk to friends about the situation. That none of these actions helped Brodie is a core element of her tragedy. Bullying, as with many workplace hazards, is best dealt with by not allowing it to take root in any workplace from the very beginning of a business’ operation. Too many try to retrofit safety into an already toxic and dysfunctional workplace.

The 7PM Project also ran some dubious re-enactments of workplace bullying and, incongruously, some footage of a construction site?! Continue reading “Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?”

The Commercial Kitchens Campaign needs further examination

Why is a government workers’ compensation agency promoting first aid when a different agency has had that role for over twenty years? And why do the program’s first aid kits contain commercial products that are no more effective in the first aid treatment of burns than water from the tap?

On May 12 2011, WorkCover SA launched, in conjunction with the Julian Burton Burns Trust, the Commercial Kitchens Campaign. Burns are a major feature of this campaign with 500 Commercial Kitchens Burns Packs being distributed free to restaurants and cafes in South Australia.

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that these kits contain a Burns First Aid Kit developed by A/Prof John Greenwood, the Julian Burton Burns Trust and St John Ambulance Australia which includes the following items:

burnaid gel
burnaid dressing,
a plastic sheet,
sterile towel,
tape, and
step by step directions written by A/Prof John Greenwood.

The odd thing about this initiative is that medical research has shown that burnaid gels are less effective than cool running water for the first aid treatment of burns. In the journal Wound Practice and Research (Vol 18 Number 1 – Feb 2010) Australian researchers Leila Cuttle and Roy M Kimble wrote in “First Aid treatment of burn injuries” that

“The widespread use of such dressings [Burnaid is specifically referenced] (which have now even penetrated the first aid market) is alarming considering the lack of studies which support their use.” Continue reading “The Commercial Kitchens Campaign needs further examination”

Source data from within the quad bike safety stoush

SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to contact the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries’ Rhys Griffiths this afternoon seeking clarification of the FCAI’s withdrawal from quad bike safety discussions reported yesterday. Prior to withdrawing, a document was read to the quad bike safety working group. The document has not been released publicly but below is the gist.

Further down the page is an edited version of the letter that the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (AgHealth) has reportedly sent to “290 rural motorcycle dealers”. According to Rhys Griffiths being quoted in The Weekly Times, this letter

“”…basically says dealers could be looking at law suits for not fitting devices on ATVs… This is in direct contradiction to the manufacturers’ recommendations, so the dealer is caught in the middle.” Continue reading “Source data from within the quad bike safety stoush”

Category: campaign

Targeting the most dangerous industries but not those with the most deaths

Like this:

Government must restructure to address the evolution of OHS

Like this:

Farming federation calls for mandatory fitting of safety devices to quadbikes

Like this:

Quad bike poster distracts from the evidence

Like this:

Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?

Like this:

The Commercial Kitchens Campaign needs further examination

Like this:

Source data from within the quad bike safety stoush

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: