Lord Young = old approach to OHS

Reviews of OHS legislation by governments are usually keenly anticipated as they mostly occur once a system is broken.  But there seems to be considerable trepidation with the plan announced on 14 June 2010, by the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Cameron has appointed Lord Young to undertake an extensive review of OHS.  According to the Prime minister’s media statement:

“The rise of the compensation culture over the last ten years is a real concern, as is the way health and safety rules are sometimes applied.

We need a sensible new approach that makes clear these laws are intended to protect people, not overwhelm businesses with red tape.”

Lord Young has a lot of work to do in building bridges after his disastrous appearance at the 2010 conference of the Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH) in April 2010.  It’s not quite like putting Lord John Browne in charge of a petrol station but…. Continue reading “Lord Young = old approach to OHS”

OHS Canaries and Apathy

Guest author, Yossi Berger writes:

“What’s the point of tellin’ them the same thing over and over when nothin’ changes?  I open my mouth about safety again I could lose me job” he said, “Why would I bother?”[a]

Introduction

Words and names can be used as sneaky accomplices to construct popular or inaccurate narratives.  When such constructions are used as explanations of workers’ behaviour and presumed attitudes they can misdirect occupational health and safety (OHS) programs.  An example is the frequently heard ‘workers’ apathy’ explanation of poor OHS standards.  The important UK 1972 Robens Report on OHS noted:

”….our deliberations over the course of two years have left us in no doubt that the most important single reason for accidents at work is apathy”.[1]

It’s 2009 and some of this in various guises[b] still obscures simple facts at work.

I believe that choosing the banner of ‘apathy’[c] as an explanation of poor OHS standards was and continues to be inaccurate.   Continue reading “OHS Canaries and Apathy”

Yesmanship – the biggest threat to safety culture

The recent release of a new book on Operation Mincemeat has again raised the term “yesmanship” in  the media.  Online definitions explain the term as

“An atmosphere in which people claim to agree with leadership for political reasons, even when they don’t actually agree with leadership” .

The significance of the term in relation to the current trend of “safety culture” should not be underestimated.  Below are some definitions of safety culture that illustrate the similarities to or risk from yesmanship.

“The product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organization’s health and safety management” Continue reading “Yesmanship – the biggest threat to safety culture”

OHS challenges face the Australian taxi industry

The New South Wales Parliamentary has released the findings of its inquiry into the State’s taxi industry.  Although OHS was not the focus of the inquiry, “working conditions” were included in the terms of reference and the report has made some safety recommendations.  The taxi industry requires an innovative approach to OHS implementation in order to meet future driver and passenger demands.

The Committee has called for

“…an increased emphasis on occupational health and safety, industrial issues and insurance rights to better inform taxi drivers of their entitlements and responsibilities…”
even though the NSW Taxi Council stated that existing training exceeded national training standards.  Perhaps the range of stakeholders consulted by the Council needs reviewing.  Clearly training has been deficient in reality even if it matches national benchmarks.  This  calls into question one’s reliance on national training standards. Continue reading “OHS challenges face the Australian taxi industry”

What can OHS professionals learn from government program failures?

Marcus Priest of the Australia Financial Review wrote a good article on 2 June 2010 (only available through subscription or hard copy) that illustrates the managerial deficiencies of the Australian Government by looking at the lessons from two governmental investigation reports concerning a large-scale construction program for existing schools and the home insulation scheme.  Priest identifies several issues that should be noted by those who are designing large projects and who need to deal with the government directly

Priest’s opening paragraph is:

“The decisions by the Rudd government to try pull (sic) the country out of a recession by spending billions on schools and free home roofing insulation have come to be regarded as worthy ideas that morphed into a disaster of public administration.”

Marcus says that these reports show an overworked public service, unreasonable government expectations, a disconnection between policy and its real-world application and poor assumptions. Continue reading “What can OHS professionals learn from government program failures?”

The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO

The Australian business newspapers and websites are all reporting on the  “dud” contract that Downer EDI has been saddled with over the construction of 78 eight-car trains for New South Wales’ RailCorp.  Market analysts say that company has lost $A1.7 billion in value this year.

CEO Geoff Knox, a man in genuine risk of becoming unemployed, is quoted as saying:

“We do seem to be able to build trains successfully and make good money on other states in this country, but in this state we seem to not do well and others seem to not do well…”

Others can discuss the financial problems of Downer EDI but Knox seems to only look at the contract rather than the reasons behind the “time consuming” design requirements of the contract – The Waterfall rail disaster of January 2003, the commission of inquiry’s reports and the government’s promises.

Continue reading “The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO”

US workplace bullying interview with Gary Namie

Ben Merens of Wisconsin Public Radio interviewed Gary Namie of the Bullying Institute on 26 May 2010 for 45 minutes on his At Issue radio program.  The interview is very timely as new “Healthy Workplace” legislation is being considered in the United States.

What was useful in this interview was that the discussion centred on workplace bullying and Namie summarised how this is substantially different from schoolyard bullying – a  significant difference which requires different methods of control.  Namie says that although bullying in childhood is significant, the impact on an adult of similar treatment may have longer lasting effects.

The broadcast, of course, applies to the US context principally but Namie has a long and strong international reputation in workplace bullying advice and deserves an audience.  Tellingly, Namie says that the comparison for workplace bullying is not schoolyard bullying but domestic violence.

In 2001, Namie provided me with a review copy the 2000 edition of The Bully At Work for the SafetyATWORK magazine.  The review is available HERE.

Kevin Jones

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