Category: consultation

Is the trickling down of safety information sufficient?

A recent article in the Journal of Health Safety Research & Practice (JHSRP) quoted the findings of some research into construction and safe design by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  One of the NIOSH recommendations listed was that “… the trickle-down concept is appealing.”  The “trickle-down concept” may be appealing in many areas of policy, practice and the advocacy of leadership but its effectiveness is questionable.

It has become a mantra of some areas of the safety professional that safety can only be improved when introduced from the top.  A whole sector of safety leadership sellers has been created on this belief and an important element of the salesmanship is that good safety practices will trickle-down.  This sounds logical but it is necessary to analyse this concept, a concept that originated well outside of safety management.

Trickle-down has been described as a marketing concept, which seems based, partly, on envy.  Wikipedia says that, when applied to fashion,

“…this theory states that when the lowest social class, or simply a perceived lower social class, adopts the fashion, it is no longer desirable to the leaders in the highest social class.”

If this can be applied to safety leadership, it may be that by the time the leadership values reach the shopfloor workers, the leadership advocates, the executives, may be no longer interested.  The transience of trickle-down should be considered when leadership is applied.  How can safety change be sustained through leadership?  What can keep leadership fresh and relevant? Continue reading “Is the trickling down of safety information sufficient?”

Australian OHS experts call for a single OHS regulator and a unified insurance system

Some of Australia’s top work health and safety experts have stressed, to Safe Work Australia, the need for a single national OHS regulator.  Many also called for a radical overhaul of workers’ compensation and insurance structures to achieve a combined insurance/compensation similar to that of New Zealand, the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC).

These calls were made in a  whole day workshop, conducted by Safe Work Australia on 30 August 2011, on the development of the next ten-year national OHS strategy.  This was the latest of around ten consultative sessions whose notes will be summarised and posted online.  The notes from an earlier seminar list the following discussion topics:

  • “The need to focus on work health and safety prevention.
  • Engagement with target groups and industries to ensure advice and support is relevant to enable them to effectively respond to hazards.
  • Engineering hazards out through good design.
  • Influencing the supply chain inside and outside Australia.
  • Prioritising key work health and safety hazards and focusing national attention.
  • Creating opportunities for innovation in work health and safety particularly within the regulatory framework.
  • Enhancing the culture of safety leadership (promoting highly reliable organisations).
  • The importance of safety culture.
  • Enhancing the capability of workers to return to work following accident or illness.
  • Influencing or assisting academia to undertake research – focusing on intervention effectiveness.
  • Developing a shared communication strategy to promote the new principles of the new Strategy.”

These echo many of the comments in today’s seminar and illustrate what was a major missed opportunity.  The theme of today’s workshop was to imagine what OHS (or work health and safety or work health safety & environment, as some suggested) will be like in 2022 but there were few futuristic suggestions.  This was the opportunity to extend some of the practices currently undertaken by ten years. Continue reading “Australian OHS experts call for a single OHS regulator and a unified insurance system”

Concerns increase as Australia’s OHS law changes loom

Conference organisers IQPC started its two-day Safety in Design, Engineering and Construction conference on 16 August 2011.  The most prominent speaker on day one was Barry Sherriff of law firm, Norton Rose.  Sherriff spoke about OHS harmonisation‘s impact on the Australian construction industry.

Over time Australian labour lawyers generally have moved from saying that Victorian companies have little to worry about from the new laws expected on 1 January 2012 to quite alarming suggestions of challenges to do with contractor management and consultation.  Part of this modification of advice may be due to the increased analysis of company OHS systems.  Sherriff said that he has been surprised how many companies ask for advice about compliance under the new laws and yet are not complying under the existing OHS laws.

On the issue of consultation, Sherriff identified the “coordination of activities” and managing the “flow of information” as a critical element in the new OHS model laws.  But he stressed that such obligations have existed in OHS laws in many Australian States for sometime but are now more overtly stated. Continue reading “Concerns increase as Australia’s OHS law changes loom”

Business groups have different stances on harmonisation issues

The politics of the Australian print media may be illustrated by an article in The Australian Financial Review (AFR) (only available through subscription or hard copy) on 27 July 2011 that, essential contrasts yesterday’s article in The Australian.

Today’s AFR article places the Australian Industry Group (AiGroup) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA) in contrast to the ACCI and the NSW Minerals Council over the implementation timetable on OHS harmonisation.  Mark Goodsell of AiGroup said in the AFR that all parties have been able to voice their concerns throughout this three year review process:

“So we would be very disappointed if there was a fracturing of commitment to harmonisation or if the timetable was pushed out.”

The objection to an extension of time places AiGroup in opposition to the WA Government’s Commerce Minister Simon O’Brien. Continue reading “Business groups have different stances on harmonisation issues”

Harmonisation timetable stoush

The Australian newspaper has reported serious threats to the Australian Government’s timetable for the harmonisation of OHS laws.  A threat to the government’s strategy was always possible from the fact that State government’s were likely to change from predominantly Labor Party States to Conservative parties over the period of harmonisation.  The Australian says that the threat is becoming a reality.

Western Australia, an unhappy participant in harmonisation, has begun questioning the deadline of 1 January 2012 for the introduction of harmonised OHS laws.  The WA government has been a consistent critic of some of the element s of the process but, to some extent, the latest statement from West Australia’s Commerce Minister Simon O’Brien could be interpreted as a willingness to sign up to the changes if more time for implementation is granted.

O’Brien and the WA government may be receiving some support from political colleagues in Victoria going by the comments from the Victorian Government.  In an almost unique acknowledgement of the harmonisation process a spokesperson said:

“The focus of developing a national OHS framework should be not on harmonisation for harmonisation’s sake, but rather on achieving beneficial outcomes, both for the nation as well as Victoria…..In addition, any harmonised national OHS framework must not result in increased compliance costs and more onerous regulations.”

The mention of national interest aligns well with WA’s objections. Continue reading “Harmonisation timetable stoush”

Fatigue dispute illustrates ideological clash

The Australian newspaper reports today (26 July 2011) of a clash between the Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU) and BHP Billiton over fatigue management.  Fatigue management is one of the workplace hazards scheduled for a draft code of practice under the OHS harmonisation process.

The CFMEU believes that the current mining-related guidance  is inadequate.

“The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union says the government buckled under industry pressure and abandoned plans for binding industry standards that would minimise the risk of workers doing successive 12-hour shifts and then driving long distances on public roads.”

The flaw in the CFMEU’s campaign is that it has been selective in its choice of fatigue documentation.  Looking at the industry sector rather than the hazard or risk limits the hazard control options.  In the current case the CFMEU is not acknowledging many of the fatigue guidancesand documents that are available from Workplace Health and Safety Queensland or from some of the other States and even from overseas as this Safe Work Australia document from 2006 shows.

In fact the narrow selection of guidance in this instance makes a strong case for greater collaboration in the development of information across industry sectors and State jurisdictions – one of the aims of harmonisation. Continue reading “Fatigue dispute illustrates ideological clash”

Draft mining OHS documents cause concern

The draft OHS documents for mining  in Australia seemed like a fairly rudimentary release in Australia’s move to harmonisation of its safety laws but several issues have appeared in the media since the draft’s release.

The CEO of the New South Wales Minerals Council, Nikki Williams, found something other than the carbon tax to discuss during the council’s annual safety conference.

Although her audience is principally NSW miners, Williams does have a national perspective.

“Each State is drafting their new laws individually and using different models. There are missing components and a large number of inconsistencies.

If this process continues unchecked, the prospect of genuine legislative reform that will deliver a world leading mining regulatory framework appears very remote.

“We are deeply disappointed that this has not been resolved and question why the core WHS regulations couldn’t be developed to effectively regulate all mining states.”

In some ways, Williams’ words show a misunderstanding of the laws. The laws are intended to manage mining, not the companies, not the States, not the workers. The safety of the mining process is the target. It is possible to focus on the safety of a process or industry without considering the politics, at the outset. Continue reading “Draft mining OHS documents cause concern”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd