The European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) has upgraded its newsletter to a hard-copy six-monthly magazine called HesaMAG. SafetyAtWorkBlog received its copy a couple of days ago and we applaud the ETUI for being innovative by going backwards. Continue reading “New (hard copy) OHS magazine”
Category: communication
Sandman lecture online
In November 2009, Peter Sandman delivered the Berreth Lecture at the annual conference of the National Public Health Information Coalition (NPHIC). Significantly Sandman was asked not to present on risk communication but about his experiences in risk communication and how he came to prominence in the field.
The NPHIC has made the 65-minute video of his lecture available on-line. Sandman has the audio available through his website. The speech notes are also available but, as is his wont, Sandman diverges from the “script” frequently.
HSE Chair’s review of 2009
Judith Hackett, Chair of the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), reviews the performance of the agency in the December podcast produced by the agency. Transcript is available online
The podcast provides a positive outlook for the HSE which one would expect. Hackett talks about the need for the HSE to dispel the myths that have been promoted throughout the media and the lack of credibility of the regulator discussed by many in the UK, such as Jeremy Clarkson. Continue reading “HSE Chair’s review of 2009”
Grass Roots Safety
For over 40 years, the Australian State of Victoria has had several safety organisations that exist under the radar. In the 1960s the Department of Labour & Industries supported the generation of safety groups but many groups simply appeared.
These groups are, what in contemporary times would be referred to as, networking groups. The members were from a range of industries, often from a particularly industrial part of Melbourne of regional areas. The groups met usually once a month sometimes in a factory canteen to talk about safety and to see if any members could suggestion solutions to particular problems.
One group, the Western Safety Group encompasses the western suburbs of Melbourne, a zone of concentrated manufacturing plants and one which includes a major zone of chemical production. (In my youth I would try to catch lizards in the buffer zones around the plants)
A risk with any grass roots association is to reach a level of sustainability without becoming a commercial entity. WSG and the Central Safety Group have achieved this in different ways. In each WSG meeting, which usually runs for around one hour during the day, there is a 10 to 15 minute window for sellers of new OHS products and services to sell their wares. This is a pragmatic solution to the reality that an OHS network’s membership list could be lucrative.
The Central Safety Group has a different approach because it has developed a different character. The CSG, of which I am a Life Member, has conducted its meetings in the centre of Melbourne and with the decline of manufacturing and industry in the city and inner suburbs, the membership has moved from an industrial to managerial approach.
CSG does not allow for the promotion of OHS services and products and is much the better for it. Allowing commercialism into a community or networking group makes it a trade show or exhibition and defeats the purpose.
These two groups, and there are others, have had a fluid membership that has probably topped no more than about 80 members at a time but this is an advantage. Members appreciate the face-to-face discussion. Meetings have minimal formality and foster camaraderie even amongst industrial competitors.
Mostly the safety groups that have lasted have done so by maintaining an independence from the OHS regulator although most groups have at least one member who works with WorkSafe Victoria. Although some of the groups have existed for decades, there is no mention of them on the WorkSafe website although WorkSafe has made several attempts to create a safety group directory and a meeting of Safety Group secretaries almost 10 years ago began discussions with WorkSafe to establish a single webpage listing.
The groups are also, largely, independent from the larger safety organisations although those safety organisations have made moves to support safety groups. Moves that have been mostly rebuffed.
Over the last few year the Western and the Central Safety Groups have established websites (CSG’s will be functioning in December 2009) as the most efficient way to communicate with members in between the monthly meetings.
Such networking groups have huge advantages over professional associations who have such a broad range of issues to consider. The safety group “model” talks about safety and funds itself from annual membership fees of much less than $A100 in most circumstances.
In some circumstance “small is beautiful”, welcoming, professionally satisfying and productive. Victoria’s safety groups are a good example of groups of like-minded OHS professional helping each other out rather than trying to climb the greasy pole.
Safety awards and the new media option
In yesterday’s article on Kerrin Rowan, mention was made of how important local community support is. A reader has drawn our attention to a front page article in the Plains Producer newspaper of 9 October 2008 (not available online)
It reminded us of the significance local newspapers have in the rewarding the achievements of local citizens and that the front page article, inversely, illustrates how almost all daily metropolitan newspapers ignore OHS and RTW award winners. There seems to be no mention of Kerrin in the online site for The Adelaide Advertiser.
But then safety awards seem not to be newsworthy. Daily newspapers seem to see safety awards as a marketing tool and throws them all in the PR basket, even those worthy of greater attention. Kerrin’s story is one of the few exceptional rehabilitation stories and yet even with this level of “human interest”, such a story is ignored.
The newspapers are happy to receive the advertising revenue for a half page ad inserted by the OHS regulator congratulating the award winners but no one in the newspaper publishers seems to see any newsworthiness in the award winners.
Perhaps it is time for the OHS regulators to give up trying for the attention of the traditional media and go Web 2.0 with blogs, Twitter and Youtube. Although, SafetyAtWorkBlog would still be looking for the human interest. Recently we did not report on some OHS award winners for OHS management systems, principally because it is difficult to describe explain such a system in an article. What could be done is to report on the significance of the award for the winners but that does not assist readers with OHS solutions, one of the aims of our blog.
OHS people and blog readers like pictures and video. They like to use the technological capacity of the internet in a combination that traditional media cannot match. OHS regulators and award conveners could do more to support the newer media by a prompt turnaround in video or images from the awards night. These are already produced before, or on, the awards nights but often take over a week, if at all, to be accessible to the media. The new media and its readers want immediacy and immediacy allows the community to share in some of the exhilaration felt by the award winners. Topicality is tenuous.
Some OHS awards have been running for over ten years but still gain no traction in the metropolitan newspapers. Our advice is to embrace the new media and see where it leads.
Public Comments vs Petition – modern lobbying required
Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog noted that almost one quarter of the submission to the government on its proposed national model OHS law were from individuals and confidential. There was a suspicion of bulk proforma submissions.
One example that is available through the publicly accessible submissions is a letter to the Minister, Julia Gillard, from the Dr Sharann Johnson, President of the Australian lnstitute of Occupational Hygienists. The letter raises concerns over the omission of “suitably qualified” from the legislation. It concludes
“I strongly implore you to reconsider your decision not to include a requirement for the providers of Occupational Health and Safety advice and services to be “suitably qualified” in the national new model OHS legislation. lt would be disappointing to see this amalgamation of legislation miss the opportunity to make a significant impact on the standard of OHS advice provided to Australian industry and ultimately improve our health and safety performance at a national level.”
Similar concerns to Dr Johnson’s have been discussed elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog but on the issue of proforma submissions it is noted that three other submissions, Kevin Hedges, Gavin Irving and a personal submission by Dr Johnson, contain almost exactly the same text.
What these and other proforma submitters are producing is not a response to a draft document or a submission but a petition. Petitions have existed for centuries and carry considerable political clout but putting in a cut-and-paste submission is unhelpful. It signifies a united position but is not constructive. A petition to the Government or specific ministers on a single issue, such as “suitably qualified”, may have had more influence if it included an influential number of signatories and was lodged at the appropriate time, in response to outrage over the particular matter.
There is no criticism of the content of the AIOH letters only of the method of delivery and strategy. There are many more confidential submissions that have also applied a similar strategy.
SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted Safe Work Australia over the issue and asked “How many proformas were used and who were they by?” A spokesperson responded
“Of the 480 submissions received, just over 200 standard form submissions were received from union members, in five different proformas. Each of the five forms contained similar comments. In addition, we identified a small number of standard form submissions from one professional association.”
In developing better legislation, the influence on the process from “weight of numbers” is likely to be far less in this circumstance than would be gained through constructive and innovative suggestions.
As Australia is likely to go through similar public comment phases on a raft of OHS regulations and documents over the next 12 months, assuming the Government does not shelve the project. It is important for the proforma submitters to review their strategies and, perhaps, establish more direct contact through lobbying the relevant Ministers in each State and Federally, on behalf of their large (?) membership. In this way the Government would be familiar with the various organisations, would understand the background to those organisations’ arguments, and would then anticipate the innovative solutions that OHS organisations, professionals and experts, would put forward.
This strategy has worked for the unions and business groups for decades. It may be time for a new strategy for some groups that combines reliable techniques like petitions with personal contact to be followed up by a knock-out submission at the right time, perhaps supported by a broadly distributed media statement.
How to make positive training programs attractive to OHS professionals
Yesterday’s article on positive training programs and behaviour-based safety (BBS) has generated a great deal of interest and attention.
The article’s title should maybe have specified the “OHS context”. Like with Return-To-Work, OHS professionals need BBS and positive training to be explained to their understanding so they see how it fits with their own safety management systems. They need to have their own “light-bulb moment on the relevance of the training not be convinced of the need by a sales person.
HR professionals may be more receptive to positive training concepts because they are more familiar with the psych babble but OHS still has engineering as the basis for the profession. Only in the last 10 years have OHS professionals accepted (not universally) the legitimacy of psychosocial hazards and that, primarily, because the OHS regulators released guidance on the hazards.
Don’t try to apply leadership and training to OHS through HR because the jargon confuses. Introduce yourself to some OHS people and listen to them talk of their profession. Research the attitudes of the OHS people directly. Do not rely on external research surveys as it is more important for you to understand OHS people than for a survey to report “47% of OHS professionals think resilience training programs are twaddle”.
Once you have listened, go personally to other OHS professionals and practitioners with training programs that can be readily integrated into safety management systems. Don’t expect your potential clients to exert effort to understand you, it’s your job to understand them.
And don’t expect a quick decision. Good OHS professionals will ask their colleagues and peers what they think of your programs and concepts before getting back to you. They may even approach their OHS associations for an opinion.
Past approaches to OHS professionals on BBS and similar training have been embarrassing. One notable BBS advocate from the US spoke around five years ago to about 400 OHS people in Australia. At morning tea time around half left the (expensive) seminar convinced that BBS was a crock. That advocate is still highly regarded in the US but Australians just didn’t “get it”.
Slapping up a couple of pictures of the Sydney Opera House in a presentation, or walking the room like an evangelist, does more harm than good. Come prepared and prepared to listen and the OHS professional may “get it”…..even just a little bit.