Australian business media, especially the Australian Financial Review (AFR), continues to oppose the Victorian (Labor) government’s intention to make working from home (WFH) a formal right and entitlement. Every week, the mainstream media report on the latest research that criticises the move on the basis of productivity impacts, restrictions on career progress and other business negatives; occasionally, very occasionally, some positives are reported – better mental health, reduced living and commuter costs, flexibility for family duties and obligations.
Category: culture
Brodie Panlock, workplace bullying and the limits of outrage
Workplace bullying has a habit of becoming visible only after harm has already occurred. In 2010, the 2006 death of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock became the point at which many Australians first understood that bullying at work was not merely a Human Resources (HR) irritant, or a personality weakness, or one of those unfortunate things that happens in a rough workplace somewhere else. It was an occupational health and safety (OHS) issue.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
20th Anniversary of Significant Workplace Bullying Fatality
I am old enough to remember the work-related suicide of Brodie Panlock in 2006, meaning this year is the 20th anniversary. Her death, the findings of the Victorian Coroner and the prosecution by WorkSafe Victoria are pivotal to how workplace bullying and mental health at work are seen and managed today. But there is a generation of young workers who may be unaware of her case.
This series of articles trace that failure of prevention across three stages: the immediate OHS significance of the Café Vamp prosecution, the public and legal response through Brodie’s Law and national inquiries, and the continuing relevance of psychosocial hazard prevention under modern OHS duties.
The articles are based on the original SafetyAtWorkBlog articles from 2010 onwards. Today, here is a brief reminder of what Brodie Panlock experienced.
Please note that this article and those following discuss suicide and mental trauma.
Political Reform Keeps Ignoring OHS Even When It Could Strengthen It
OHS remains invisible in political debate unless people die. Politicians will talk about productivity, investment, innovation and community renewal, but they rarely talk about preventing workers from being killed, injured or psychologically harmed. When OHS does appear, it is usually framed as a cost burden rather than a social benefit. Yet every political promise about fairness, renewal, or community well-being carries an implied OHS benefit if anyone bothers to look.
Turning Moral Questions into Action on Workplace Safety
There seems to be an increase in democratic socialism in the United States. Socialism-based principles, the “common good,” the Green New Deal, limitarianism, post-neoliberalism, and others are being discussed with increasing seriousness. Underpinning these ideas is respect for humans (and others), a push to understand the limits and potential of humans, and a countering of the idea that humans are primarily “units of labour” and that their only value is determined by their productivity. Perhaps it is time to engage directly with, and politely challenge, these entrenched business approaches.
Redesigning Risk — Quinlan and Mazzucato Unite to Make Work Safer
Whenever Mariana Mazzucato publishes a new book, she appears in the press everywhere as part of book tours and promotions. Her latest book, The Common Good Economy, is likely to be as influential on government and international policymakers as her other books have been. Australia’s Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, pays close attention to her perspectives. These perspectives relate to the management of occupational health and safety (OHS) because they present a different or tweaked sense of corporate morality, under which workers should be safe and healthy.
This article is not a review of the Common Good Economy book, although it is very good. Instead, I compare Mazzucato’s approach on work to Professor Michael Quinlan‘s take on precarity.
Eliminating Concussion and CTE From Australian Rules Football
Every time a sporting body is confronted with concussion data, someone inevitably asks whether the game can be played without the risk. In most industries, that question is the starting point for a “so far as is reasonably practicable” (SFAIRP) analysis. In sport, it’s treated as heresy. But if we apply the same occupational health and safety (OHS) logic to Australian rules football that we apply to construction, mining or manufacturing, the answer is, if you want to eliminate concussion and the risks of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), you have to eliminate the mechanisms that cause it. And once you do that, you no longer have the game as we know it.






