For the last 5 months I have been living and working on Norfolk Island, an external territory of Australia, three hours by plan off the east coast of Australia. I am on a 6-month contract which concludes in just over a week.
I have written regularly over the psychological impacts of Fly-in, Fly-Out (FIFO) workers and looked at this contract as an extreme example of working away from home and being isolated from friends and family. So how do I think I have coped?
In the Northern Hemisphere, workers are again facing dangerous summer heat. In a few months, it will be the Southern Hemisphere’s turn. Climate extremes are producing droughts, wildfires, and crop failures. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s becoming easier to see how the world ends, and how work and business will be affected. As with most catastrophes, occupational health and safety (OHS) sits quietly in the background. It needs to step forward because it has tools that can help.
The occupational health and safety (OHS) dimensions of working from home (WFH) are routinely misrepresented in public debate, often drowned out by managerial preference, corporate culture, and political posturing. Remarkably consistent evidence shows that WFH does not reduce productivity. In many cases it improves it, largely because autonomy, reduced commuting, and better control over work rhythms lower psychological risks such as stress, burnout, and fatigue. From an OHS standpoint, that makes WFH a legitimate and effective control measure that is certainly not a threat to organisational performance.
Yet employers frequently resist WFH, invoking vague claims about collaboration, culture, or “team cohesion”. (This article was written before the postponement of the Victorian laws)
For the last few years, McDonald’s in the United Kingdom has been embroiled in scandals involving the harassment and sexual harassment of staff by other staff members. As McDonald’s is an international company with similar operational systems of work, how would the Australian arm of the company react to a similar situation?
Recently, Dr Kat Page wrote about the systems of work faced by emergency service workers that create unacceptable psychosocial hazards and mental harm. Her systems-based approach, best explained in her book “Good Work: Transform Your Work from the Inside Out“, remains surprising to many but is hopefully prompting people to think more deeply about work, particularly about why we work the way we do and the harm that persists in certain jobs and occupations.
This year, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has released excellent information on psychosocial hazards at work to support the World Day for Safety and Health at Work. (Australian researchers seem to have been instrumental in the report) I read the report, looking for more upstream concerns, such as political and socioeconomic factors that lead employers to create or allow work overload, the most significant contributor to work-related stress. This is what I found.
Workplace bullying, harassment and other psychosocial risks are no longer fringe issues – they are central to how we think about safety, fairness and dignity at work. One forum that has been shaping this conversation for more than two decades is the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) and its much‑anticipated biannual conference. This year’s event brings researchers, regulators and practitioners together in Canberra to tackle some of the most difficult problems in working life, with a strong emphasis on practical solutions, especially pertaining to sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
Professor Carlo Caponecchia, who is presenting at the conference, made some time for a couple of questions.
Continue reading “Solving Psychosocial Harm at Work: The Upcoming Global IAWBH Conference in Canberra”
