A recent edition of the Professional Safety Journal from the United States included a cover story about pre-work stretching. This common activity on some construction and manufacturing sites is promoted as a means of preventing injury or reducing the severity of, especially, musculoskeletal injuries, but I don’t think there ever was evidence to support either of these intentions, and there still isn’t.
Recently WorkSafe Victoria revealed that in 2025:
“In the first half of this year, 174 Workcover claims have been lodged from the construction industry, from falls alone. A further 34 businesses have been charged and another 28 duty holders faced legal action, accumulating more than 2.54 million in fines, undertakings and costs. That already tops the entire 2024 figure of $1.65 million from 33 charged or prosecuted entities.”
I had the opportunity to ask WorkSafe’s Chief Health and Safety Officer, Sam Jenkin (pictured above), why such a well-known workplace hazard persists.
One of my previous employers was highly committed to occupational health and safety (OHS), but always gave the program, the schedule or utilisation a higher priority. Whether that was a justifiable compliance level was of little concern, as long as the auditors recertified the OHS management systems. The company realised their approach to OHS was not working, so it turned its focus on “critical risks”, which were, bluntly, anything that would kill you. But such was the strength of the culture that even this focus on critical risks failed to cut through and give OHS the respect that it legislatively deserves.
Matthew Hallowell‘s latest book, “Energy-Based Safety – A Scientific Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs)“, discusses this focus on critical risks.
Just over a week ago, RMIT University’s research funding program, SHINe, conducted its inaugural symposium. This symposium was both new and fascinating. It was overbooked with a considerable weight list, I think, because of the international safety research guests, but the fact that an event in Safe Work Month was free might have helped. The research by the Construction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) for the United States was a highlight.
Mental health in the construction industry is a perennial occupational health and safety (OHS) concern – high levels of suicide, suicide ideation, depression, anxiety, etc, – the usual suspects. Research into this has been robust in Australia, with the work of Professor Helen Lingard and the Construction Industry Culture Taskforce, among others. Recently, I heard about the Wellness in Infrastructure organisation for the first time.
Ask someone to depict occupational health and safety (OHS) in a drawing, and the image is likely to include a hard hat, maybe some safety glasses, or hearing protection. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) dominates the concept of OHS and how people perceive OHS, even when PPE is the last hazard control option to be considered in providing safe and healthy work.
Our relationship with PPE has forever been changed by everyone’s experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survivors of the pandemic are loath to reflect on those few intense years, but OHS needs to talk about the pandemic and what went right and what went wrong. Here’s a short start to the conversation.
The Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) state branches conduct local single-day symposia annually. These networking and professional development sessions are important opportunities for practitioners of occupational health and safety (OHS) to connect and learn.
The good presenters were very good at the Victorian Branch symposium in September.
