Recently, Ernst Young released a discussion paper about the risks of mental health in the workplace.
Mental health is a very popular topic at the moment and there are thousands of service providers in this sector. During the recent National Mental Health Week,
1300 occupational health and safety representatives in one room provides a great deal of passion about workplace safety. These are not the OHS suits, the regulators or the safety app spruikers that other conferences attract.
There is talk about safety leadership but few are thinking about the CEOs. They see leadership in themselves. Indeed, it may be a major step forward for the OHS sector to start to separate OHS leaders from OHS leadership. The room this morning had hundreds of OHS leaders. Continue reading “Half time at union OHS representatives conference”
On 30 September 2015, SafetyAtWorkBlog highlighted a conversation about inspector numbers from the Tasmanian Parliament. The information was confusing but crucial in understanding WorkSafe Tasmania’s occupational health and safety enforcement capacity and strategy.
Below are some questions posed to WorkSafe Tasmania in an attempt to clarify the issues and the OHS regulator’s replies. Two responses prompted comment on workplace health and wellbeing strategies.
Recently an Australian law firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, conducted a series of seminars that provided a different perspective on issues related to workplace mental health and safety.
The Victorian Government has just released its first discussion paper into labour hire practices and insecure work. As has been discussed when the Inquiry was announced, occupational health and safety (OHS) is part of this inquiry but OHS will only gain the attention it deserves if someone advocates on behalf of worker safety exclusively and thinks about safety in this sector, differently.
Continue reading “Insecure work inquiries should embrace and expand the safe system of work”
While researching a blog article I found a 1970 copy of Lord Robens‘ book “Human Engineering”. On page 124 of that book, Robens writes:
“The apathy towards safety in most industry results in the misuse of safety officers, where they exist. Indeed there are basically two types of safety officers: the professional performing his life’s work, and the man appointed (usually from the shop floor) so that the company can claim to have a safety officer. The latter usually does not posses the experience or training to undertake the vast amount of work expected of him. It has been mooted that standard would be raised by creating a professional status for these officials: an idea that should not be dismissed lightly.”
Such an attitude to workplace safety by many businesses continues to exist.
And if Robens thought that a professional status for safety officers was a good idea in 1970, how come Australia has only just instigated one? Why did it take so long? Why was professional status not considered necessary for over 40 years?
(For Australian readers here is a list of public libraries, or bookshops, that stock the Robens book. OHS students may find it offers a fascinating comparative study)