The human resources (HR) discipline is often criticised for not considering the interests of workers as its primary consideration. This is not a recent phenomenon. To understand the origins of this criticism, looking at some of the research into the discipline from before the wellness industry dominated many of the HR approaches to occupational health and safety (OHS) is helpful.
Last week, Maddocks law firm conducted an end-of-year summary of its workplace relations issues and a forecast for 2025. Occupational health and safety (OHS) are almost inseparable from industrial relations (IR), so the overlaps between the four or five topics discussed were enlightening and provided a good contrast to the information from other law sources.
[The following article discusses suicides]
Suicide has been a running thread in this blog for many years, and the occupational health and safety context will continue to be examined. The issue appears in unlikely locations, such as a book translated from French called “The New Spirit of Capitalism”.
The study of suicide is finally overcoming the social stigma to accept that the causes are many, in work and in life, and that mental illness is not always present when people decide to die by suicide. Statistics have helped enormously in this by showing that rates of suicide have not declined, even with millions of government dollars going to mental health organisations.
Here are Luc Boltanski‘s and Eve Chiapello‘s thoughts on those causes and statistics:
To understand occupational health and safety (OHS), you must understand the broader topic of work. Work is not necessarily more complex than OHS, but there are more opportunities to be distracted.
Earlier this year, Andrea Komlosy‘s excellent analysis of work—”Work—The last 1,000 years“—was published in English for the first time. The book hardly discusses OHS, but Komlosy’s feminist and European perspective is refreshing after reading narrow and insular analyses from the United States.
While watching Maddocks’ recent webinar on the Right-to-Disconnect for its local council clients, I was reminded of a comment from one of Maddocks’ competitors, Steve Bell, of Herbert Smith Freehills in a seminar earlier this year (paraphrased):
“This is less a right to disconnect as a right to refuse to respond”.
The webinar summarised three contexts for the new Right-to-Disconnect laws – Industrial Relations, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Governance.
Later this week, the United Kingdom hosts an election which the Labour Party, the “party of working people,” is expected to win. Its party manifesto has been out for some time, but its workplace strategy has received less attention. Given the synergies between the UK and Australian industrial relations and occupational health and safety (OHS), Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay, deserves an outsider’s analysis.
“Trust us” is one of the riskiest phrases anyone can use. It may be even riskier to accept it. In workplaces, it is often the start of a relationship, but it can also be the start of betrayal. Part of the risk in starting any new job is that new employees must accept their introductions in good faith, and most introductions are handled by the Human Resources department but is that faith misplaced? Recently, one socialist journal from the United States (yes, the US has a socialist sub-culture …. for the moment), Jacobin, included an article about HR in its religion-themed edition (paywalled).
