Endorsing Exploitation? The Legal and Moral Blindspot in the Long-Hours Hustle

Recently, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an extraordinary article that seems to endorse the exploitation of the mental health of workers. (Although the article is paywalled, it is getting a run in some local Australian newspapers) The article reports that companies like Shopify, Solace Health, and Rilla are bluntly marketing roles that involve extreme hours, a relentless pace, and minimal downtime.

One job post literally reads: “Please don’t join unless you’re eager to work 70 hours a week.”

If the job ads for these prominent North American companies were posted in Australia, the unsafe working conditions would likely be deemed illegal.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Changing the Unchangeable? – Reforming Culture in the Australian Defence Forces

Many people in Australia are asking why any woman would consider a career in the military, given the considerable risk of sexual harassment, abuse and assaults. Occupational health and safety (OHS) and risk management disciplines often draw on many of the risk assessment processes and principles from the defence forces; however, there appear to be significant and intransigent risks in that sector.

Note: This article mentions suicide

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Are EAPs Meeting Modern Workforce Needs?

It is clear from the emails I have received, as well as many of the comments on LinkedIn and other social media platforms, that the modern role of Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) remains a contentious issue, as discussed below. One of the many issues, young workers’ perceptions of EAP, was addressed by Alena Titterton of Johnson Winter Slattery, who provides an important and different perspective on who uses EAPs:

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Rethinking Workplace Well-being: Insights from Adam Grant

In an era where employee mental health is increasingly recognised as critical, organisational psychologist Adam Grant offered useful insights into creating healthier, more productive workplaces at the Psych Health and Safety conference (PHSCon) in Sydney.

Grant argued that investing in employee well-being is not just a compassionate gesture but a strategic imperative. Companies must move beyond superficial benefits and focus on fundamental work design that empowers employees and supports their psychological health.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

What is the most persistent barrier to employers preventing psychosocial hazards?

Two prominent experts on psychosocial hazards at work, featuring at the Psych Health and Safety Conference later this week in Sydney, Mary Ann Baynton and I. David Daniels, responded to my question to them (and other speakers) listed in the title above.

Mary Ann Baynton’s response first:

“The two most persistent barriers to employers preventing psychosocial hazards are a misunderstanding of what is required and the belief that it would cost too much in terms of time and effort….”

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Tough questions about psychosocial safety and health

Over the next week or so, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be focusing on the issue of psychosocial hazards and psychological risks at work, as we cover the Psych Health and Safety Conference in Sydney. These risks and hazards are the most pressing topic in occupational health and safety (OHS) at the moment, with an increased demand for solutions from workers and the community, as well as heightened expectations for regulatory compliance. I apologise for this intense focus, but I welcome your comments and participation.

I will start by posing this question:

“The Australian approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Human Resources and Work Health and Safety have been siloed in the past. Are the approaches getting closer? Is there more cooperation between the two or are the two disciplines’ aims still too different?”

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Workplace harm and harmful behaviours

A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here
Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd