campaign – Page 36 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Australia’s OHS harmonisation likely to fall

Media reports on 11 May 2009 do not provide optimism for the introduction of harmonised OHS laws in Australia. The Australian reports that the ACTU is lobbying Federal ministers over the reports into the model OHS law that are scheduled to be discussed at the Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council on 18 May.

The unions believe that following the recommendations of the review panel will provide workers with lesser standard of safety protection than they currently have.

The government has been slow is responding to the recommendations of the review panel, an odd action given the tight reform timeline they set. However, the government has shown that timelines are flexible even when the future of humanity is threatened by climate change.

The ACTU will be campaigning in the media this week against the weakening of OHS laws, particularly the extremist laws of New South Wales. Whether this is an ambit claim or not will be found out next week but whatever it is it shows regrettable shortsightedness on the part of the ACTU.

The Australian Financial Review (page 5, 11 May 2009, article not available online) seems to take some glee in the fact that the safety laws are “shaky”. The paper may be caught between watching the Government’s agenda failing again or advocating legislative change to reduce the operational costs of its readers. The AFR reports that three States are digging in against the possible OHS law reforms. New South Wales (largely seen as dominated by the trade unions), Queensland (new IR Minster Cameron Dick wants the State’s reverse onus of proof to be applied) and Western Australia have indicated a hesitance to accept.

The Federal Government needs a two-thirds majority for the national OHS legislation to occur and, with a week to go, SafetyAtWorkBlog expects the government to apply some horsetrading for the new laws to pass.

Having said that noone yet knows what the new laws are that will be proposed. The Government has received the review panel reports but has yet to respond to the recommendations.

Any law reform focused on national harmonisation is unlikely to succeed unless there is unanimous support for the reforms. The fear all along with the OHS laws is that agreement will be short-term until state governments decide that their industries or industrial relations situation have special needs and responds parochially and weakens the national strategy.

The challenge for the Federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, is to achieve unanimity AND lock in State support for several years so that harmony and stability can be achieved. OHS law reform on this scale occurs rarely and all parties should be looking at the long term on this issue rather than their own state-based petty power struggles. We have to wait till early next week to see which States have the mature politicians.

Kevin Jones

Passive smoking and casino workers

Smoke-free workplaces have gained considerable attention over the last few years but many countries allow exemptions for casinos. This makes no health sense but considerable political and revenue sense. The American Lung Association has released a video story about one non-smoking casino worker who has suffered lung cancer, Vinnie Rennich. (The 16meg flash video is available for download)

Fearing the invisible – selling nanotechnology hazards

The community is not getting as concerned about nanotechnology as expected (or perhaps as needed). There is the occasional scare and the Australian unions have relaunched their campaign on the hazards of nanotechnology manufacturing. There have been several articles about the potential ecosystem damage of nanotechnology in our waterways. Frequently, it can be heard that nanotechnology is the new asbestos.

Nanotechnology is a new technology and all new things should be used with caution. It is odd that none of the nanotechnology protests seem to be gaining much traction.

Part of the problem is that nanotechnology is invisible and how do people become concerned about the invisible? This is a point of difference from the asbestos comparison. Asbestos was turned into asbestos products – from dust to roofing. But nanotechnology goes from invisible to items such as socks. The public see new improved versions of common items, nanotechnology is used in familiar items, but the public does not see the nanotechnology and therefore does not comprehend nanotechnology as a potential hazard.

It may be useful to jump back before asbestos to look for new communication techniques for warning consumers about the invisible.

In 1998 Nancy Tome published “The Gospel of Germs“. Tome looks at the slow realisation in the first half of last century by the public that germs and microbes exist and can cause harm. She is not interested in the germs themselves but how society accepted their existence and how they reacted. This reaction – improved hygiene, infection control, disinfectant, etc – can provide us with some clues as to how society embraces the invisible, particularly if the invisible can make us sick.

Nancy Tomes wrote the book in the time when AIDS was new. But since then SARS is new, Swine Flu is new and other pandemics will become new to a generation who have only known good health and good hygiene. Now we are creating invisible things that we know can have positive benefits but we don’t know the cost of the benefit.

It is perhaps time for the OHS lobbyists to take a page or two from the public health promotion manual (and Tome’s book) and begin to explain rather than warn. Nanotechnology is not asbestos and the comparison is unhelpful. The application of nanotechnology will be in far more products than was asbestos and the nanotechnology is smaller.

If the lobbyists can make the invisible visible then progress will be much quicker.

Kevin Jones

Trade unionist talks about nanotechnology risks

In October 2008, SafetyAtWorkBlog spoke with Renata Musolino of the Victorian Trades Hall Council. At that time the trade union movement was finalising its policies and positions on nanotechnology into the campaign that is being rolled out at the moment.

In the SafetyAtWork podcast released in April 2009, Renata talks about how nanotechnologies links with mesothelioma but also some parallels with genetically modified organisms. She discusses the need for more information about the nanomaterials and how one should apply the precautionary principle in this case.

More information about Renata is available at the Victorian Trades Hall Council website

How Workers’ Memorial Day should be treated

For the first time in many years, I will not be able to attend the local service for the Workers’ Memorial Day on 28 April 2009. I will be attending the Safe Work Australia Awards in Canberra which, coincidentally, is on the same day. I hope that the award ceremony includes a minute’s silence to remember those who have died at work.

Recently the San Francisco Labor Council passed a resolution in support of Workers’ Memorial Day. It provided several good reasons why trade unionists and, I would say, OHS professionals, should support this day. Below is part of the resolution

Whereas, April 28, 2009 is an international day of commemoration for injured workers and workers killed on the job; and

Whereas, the elimination of all doctors at Ca-OSHA has threatened the health and safety protection of California’s 17 million workers; and

Whereas, the introduction of new technology such as biotech and nanotechnology without proper oversight can and has become a threat to workers and our communities; and

Whereas, the deregulation of workers compensation has harmed injured workers and their families in California and throughout the country; and

Whereas, many of these workers have been forced onto SSI, Disability Insurance and other state and local agencies to cover their healthcare costs which is cost-shifting; and

Whereas, senior workers in many industries have been forced into retirement due to their disabilities on the job and discrimination against them due to their disabilities and age including at the US Post Office and other industries; and

Whereas, all working people and their families whether working or injured are entitled to full healthcare,

Therefore be it resolved the San Francisco Labor Council endorses and supports a Workers Memorial Day event on April 28, 2009 in San Francisco at ILWU Local 34 and encourages it’s affiliates to publicize and participate in this California Coalition for Workers Memorial Day (CCWMD)

It is a lesson for other unions and organisations that such a day does not deal with localised industrial relations disputes and can be a platform for improvement in the quality of life of workers by calling for

increased enforcement and policy resources;
caution over emerging hazards;
reassessment of deregulation;
insurance and healthcare improvements; and
appealing early retirements due to illness and injury.

I urge OHS professionals to seek out your local commemorations and participate. The more people attend, the more government will realise the seriousness of the issue. More importantly, the services remind us why we entered this profession in the first place and, just maybe, how we have made a difference.

Kevin Jones

Farmers creating dis-harmony in OHS legislation

Australia is undergoing a process of national harmonisation on workplace safety legislation. The government has played down the chances of State jurisdictions creating exemptions to, or variations of, OHS law. The message was that we are all “singing from the same song sheet”.

Even before model OHS legislation has been approved, the New South Wales Farmer’s Federation has wangled an exemption from the driver fatigue legislation in that state.

According to the President of the NSW Farmer’s Federation, Jock Laurie, the fatigue law was not about reducing or removing fatigue from the transport industry, it was about

“bureaucrats finding other ways to make life difficult for people”.

He is willing to even go on the record with the statement – Jock Laurie

As farmer and outspoken conservative Senator Bill Heffernan, said in Parliament on 22 September 2008, the legislation

“is designed to make driving safer and the work conditions better for drivers in Australia, and to harmonise the laws across the states.”

Yet he goes on to support the call for an exemption which results in weakening the harmonisation process.

It seems that farmers who drive trucks long-distances over many hours, particularly during harvest-time, do not have any relationship to the transport industry. The situation will now be that a petrol tanker driver on a country highway can operate under one set of national OHS and transport rules and a farmer delivering grain to a port operates with an exemption – all because maintainign a log book is unnecessary red tape!

This threat to the harmonisation process should have been jumped on by the Federal government.

However, it has to be said, that inadequate transport infrastructure investment has lead to the closure of country rail lines and increased the need for farmers to transport produce by road, thereby increasing the road risk to rural communities. Perhaps the farmers’ lobby groups realise they can’t change the big picture so are aiming for little targets.

Kevin Jones

Safety conference protest

Janet Holmes a Court speaking at the Safety In Action Conference 2009

On 31 March 2009, Australian trade unionists (pictured below) protested outside the Safety In Action Conference. The crowd was objecting to the presence of Ms Janet Holmes a Court, the chair of John Holland, as a keynote speaker. As Dave Noonan, CFMEU Construction Division national secretary, put it

“It is an outrage that a company with a dismal safety record is the key note speaker at a major safety conference,” Mr Noonan said. “John Holland needs to stop talking about safety and start working with the unions to make their worksites safe.”

Many of the conference delegates who were attended a breakfast seminar were oblivious of the protest outside. According to a media statement from the Safety Institute of Australia national president, Barry Silburn

“We share the same goal as the unions – to bring safety failures into the public arena and work towards preventing more deaths – so we wholeheartedly support their efforts and were pleased to see them at the conference today,” Mr Silburn said. “We certainly don’t condone the systems failures at John Holland. Janet Holmes a Court’s presentation was an opportunity to hear what went wrong and of her plans to improve those systems. She acknowledged that John Holland had made mistakes and gave delegates the opportunity to learn from them.”

Recently, the trade union movement has become more strident in its protests about John Holland’s move to the national workers compensation scheme, the only construction contractor to choose this option. The union argues that safety on John Holland sites has deteriorated since the move. They also complain over John Holland restricting union access to their worksites.

protest1mb-2

Category: campaign

Australia’s OHS harmonisation likely to fall

Like this:

Passive smoking and casino workers

Like this:

Fearing the invisible – selling nanotechnology hazards

Like this:

Trade unionist talks about nanotechnology risks

Like this:

How Workers’ Memorial Day should be treated

Like this:

Farmers creating dis-harmony in OHS legislation

Like this:

Safety conference protest

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: