OHS is not broken but does need attention

Recently an article was posted on SHPOnline called “Health and safety needs a re-brand“.  The article by Anna Keen ties in with the Safety Differently or Safety 1-Safety 2 movements but needs to be considered carefully.

The street interviews were conducted in England where occupational health and safety (OHS) has undergone such a slagging off by the tabloid media that the Health and Safety Executive had to devote resources to countering the misrepresentation of OHS.  This misrepresentation has been occurring since the mid-2000s.  The video in the article is conformation of the success of the tabloid media outrage that even led to a pathetic attempt at comedy at OHS’s expense.

OHS, particularly in the United Kingdom but less so in Australia, has a perception problem which is clear from the video but will re-branding be enough?  

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

Labour Hire Inquiry submissions address OHS, sort of

The Victorian Government has concluded the public hearing section of its inquiry into Labour Hire. Industrial Relations Minister Natalie Hutchins has said in a media release that

“Evidence has been put to the inquiry suggesting widespread  underpayment of award wages, tax avoidance, nonpayment of superannuation, poor occupational health and safety practices, maltreatment of workers and backpackers on visas, and, in some instances, allegations of illegal conduct.”

This article focusses on the occupational health and safety (OHS) evidence provided through the

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

Just Culture and Restorative Justice

Sometimes it is better to read Sidney Dekker than listen to him.  His presentation style is lively but his research and thoughts deserve more measured analysis than a conference or seminar presentation allows.  A recent research paper, “‘Just culture:’ Improving safety by achieving substantive, procedural and restorative justice“, shows the advantage of reading over watching.

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

Can OHS achieve change in a neoliberal world?

The operation of the European Union is a mystery to everyone outside the EU and to most people in the EU.  Any organisation that juggles the legislation of over 20 countries has a thankless task but some of the work being undertaken by occupational health and safety (OHS) advocates provides a clarity on power relationships between employers and workers. I never tire of reading articles and editorials by Laurent Vogel of the European Trade Union Institute. Below is an excerpt from his editorial in the Autumn-Winter 2015 edition of HesaMag: Continue reading “Can OHS achieve change in a neoliberal world?”

Safety is the highest priority. Really?

Workplace safety can have a bizarre logic.  A recent example can be seen in the continuing controversy about the deaths of two workers on a construction site in Western Australia.

In November 2015 two workers Joe McDermott and Gerard Bradley were crushed to death by a concrete slab while on a break at a Jaxon Construction site in East Perth. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) concerns about the site have been discussed on ABC television last week and on the union’s social media. WorkSafe WA is investigating.

Some of the statements by Kim Richardson, the construction director of the Master Builders Association of Western Australia (MBAWA) seem ill-timed but reflect many of the perspectives held by employers towards occupational health and safety (OHS).

Shortly after the the incident Richardson stated that

“All workers have the right to go to work and have the expectation and the right to come home safely,…. That did not happen.

There’s been a move to have a tremendous amount of paperwork where people will tick boxes to say they have a safe system in place. But that doesn’t guarantee safe systems of work. The way the work is performed is where the focus needs to be.”

Richardson’s complaints seem to be that

  • occupational health and safety has too much paperwork
  • the paperwork misrepresents the level of safety at the workplace
  • greater attention should be given to how work is performed.

Few OHS professionals in Australia would argue these points but there are some uncomfortable implications in these complaints.

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

Trade Union Royal Commission shows exploitation of OHS

cover of V1-IntroductionIn January 2015, this blog said of Australia’s Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption (TURC):

“Workplace safety has not been the focus of this Royal Commission but it is one of its victims”.

The Royal Commission’s final report was released on 30 December 2015, and it is time to look at the mentions of occupational health and safety (OHS), at least in Volume 1, and see how processes, decisions and reporting in the safety sector may change.

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

Zero Harm is dead, long live ……whatever comes next

Zero Harm was an enormously popular motivational aim for OHS.  It originated as a response in some large organisations where safety performance was plateauing and who felt that they had achieved as much as they could in redesigning work and improving physical safety.  The plateauing led to frustration and a reassessment of safety practices.  The remaining variable was seen to be the worker and so slogans were instigated to increase the care (or mindfulness) of workers.

However, this assessment seems to have taken the traditional, and shallow, approach.  One variable is, of course the worker but the assessors failed to see that the organisational structure and operations were, or should be, variable too.  In the words of the current Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, this variability, this adaptability, could lead to innovation, economic growth and increased sustainability.

The promotion of the zero harm approach to safety could be seen as a safety dead-end and an indication that organisations were fixed on only seeing the dead-end.  Safety thinkers, and there are a few, offered ways out of the dead-end by thinking differently about what we know.

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