As the world approaches World Day for Safety and Health at Work and International Workers Memorial Day this coming Sunday it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the immorality that unregulated Capitalism allows. A company in one of the last remaining exporters of asbestos, Russia, has used President Donald Trump’s words and image to support its production and export of asbestos*, a product known for over a century to cause fatal illnesses.
Why is asbestos still mind if the evidence of its fatality is incontrovertible? Greed, or as it has been called in the past – “good business sense”. Many authors have written about the history of asbestos globally and locally. Many have written about the injustice in denying victims compensation from exposure to a known harmful chemical. But few have written about the core support for asbestos production, export and sale – Greed.
Last year SafeWork South Australia was evaluated by that State’s Independent Commission against Corruption. A couple of years ago Martyn Campbell (pictured right) took on the role as the Executive Director. SafeWork SA had obvious challenges and Campbell has needed to recalibrate the organisation to meet contemporary standards and expectations.
SafetyAtWorkBlog had the chance to put some questions to Martyn Campbell recently. Below are his responses.
The occupational health and safety (OHS) profession is being affected by demographic changes as much as any other profession. Younger people seem to have a very different expectation on how to interpret and apply OHS, and older people are tired of being lectured to, and this is putting pressure on those who organise events, seminars and conferences and those who mentor and educate in a range of ways.
Some organisations and conferences are responding by reconfiguring the provision of information away from the lecture format of an expert to a mix of communication methods. This blog has written about some of those that occurred in the last two years. These conferences are less academic than in earlier days. Rarely is a conference accompanied by a handbook of research-based conference papers; some provide no papers at all and slideshows delivered a fortnight after the event are devoid of context and next to useless.
Continue reading “In order to grow, OHS needs economists, philosophers, ethicists and gender specialists”
I am one of the few freelance writers in Australia who focuses on occupational health and safety (OHS). As a result, my presence is often uncomfortable to those who organise conferences and seminars, even though I operate under the Journalist Code of Ethics. People have had to accept that there is now a media interest in OHS-related events where previously there was very little. This has caused a couple of problems and challenges.
Chatham House Rule
Recently, one seminar organiser suggested I not attend an event because the “Chatham House Rule” was to be applied. They said that as I would not be permitted to report on anything said in the seminar, it may not be worth me attending. This is a corruption of the Chatham House Rule which is best described by Chatham House itself as:
“When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.”
Australian research into
occupational health and safety (OHS) is a lot less than research into other
areas of business and management, especially in relation to the psychological
wellbeing of workers at all levels of the corporate structure. As such, it has become common for experts,
advocates and researchers from the social, non-work, public health areas to
overlay general and broad research findings on to workplaces – they are, in
effect, filling a vacuum. But just
because the OHS research into psychological harm is thin or immature does not
mean that work does not have its own characteristics.
Over many years OHS has
produced research and guidelines that include the psychological effect of
sexual harassment, but it has been ineffectual or ignored for may reasons. This submission is an attempt to illustrate
the potential already in existence
in Australia that could be used to prevent sexual harassment-related
This submission has
drawn almost exclusively on Australian-based documentation and research to
better satisfy the title and aim of this Inquiry. This is not saying that actions and data from
overseas are not relevant: there is some excellent information on the matter
from the European Union,
for instance. But quite often people seem to look overseas for evidence and
solutions when Australia already has good research and advice, if one looks.
Summary of key points
harassment often results in psychological harm to workers, and employers and
PCBUs already have a legislative obligation under OHS/WHS law to eliminate
(prevent) risks to health and safety, including psychological risks.
accepting that sexual harassment is a form of workplace violence, new
prevention options may be available.
has a range of general and specific guidance on the systematic prevention of
the psychological harm generated by sexual harassment, produced by Federal and
State or Territorial health and safety regulators.
of sexual harassment may be extremely disruptive to workplaces even though it remains
the most effective control measure.
strategy to prevent sexual harassment must have a multidisciplinary and
assessment of sexual harassment risks can be determined to internationally-recognised