Most of the Australian media is waiting for the former politicians to appear at the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program later this month but the Commission has not been quiet in its many public hearings recently. One of the hearings heard evidence that is particularly significant and relates to risk registers.
According to
After a major incident or at an Annual General Meeting, it will be common to hear a senior executive state something like “Safety is our number one priority”. This is unrealistic and almost absurd because even in the most worker-friendly company, the continued existence of that organisation is the real and ultimate goal. Most corporate leaders believe these safety clichés because they think they reflect their own values but the statements are misrepresenting occupational health and safety (OHS) and need to be questioned.
Corporate leaders who say such statements are not hypocrites. They are more likely to not understand the consequences of their statements. If safety really is the number one priority, an executive should be able or expected to close the company if its work cannot be conducted safely. If a company’s people are paramount to the success of the company, how does it handle an accusation of bullying against a manager? Which of the people does the Board or the company choose to keep and which to lose? Should it keep the “evil” sales representative because the rep is its most effective salesperson or sack the rep because he or she is abusive?
These are executive decisions that need to be worked through if any company is to develop an effective operational culture that truly values the safety of its workers. It is vital that the reality behind the statements is analysed and acted upon, or perhaps such statements should not be uttered in the first instance.
HesaMag should be obligatory reading for all OHS professionals, not just those in Europe. The editorial in the most recent edition (9 and not yet on line) is a great example of the value of this free magazine. It critically discusses the upcoming International Workers’ Memorial Day and its significance.
It asks for everyone to enact the commitment shown on each April 28 to every other day of the year. It says:
“Let’s not be taken in by the false sentiment on 28 April, but demand a clear and detailed accounting”
It asks why EU OHS legislation has been so slow to appear or be revised but equally, in Australia, questions should be asked about the status (failure in my opinion) of WHS harmonisaton, the lack of attention to the causes of workplace mental illness, the status of workplace bullying claims in the Fair Work Commission, the lack of attention to heavy vehicle OHS matters by the safety profession and the insidious encroachment of the perception of OHS as a failure of the individual rather than a failure in the system of work. Continue reading “OHS can be a force for social change, if anyone could be bothered”
There will be two areas of occupational health and safety attention in the early months of 2014 in Australia – workplace bullying laws and the Royal Commission into Home Insulation Program. The labour law firms are gearing up for a “bumper year” as one said prior to Christmas and the business groups are already lobbying/complaining/whingeing about the workplace bullying laws administered by the Fair Work Commission. However the Royal Commission has the potential for the biggest social and ideological impact so, as the new year begins, I will attempt some predictions of the Royal Commission’s findings based around some of the terms of reference.
Substantial Change
‘the processes by which the Australian Government made decisions about the establishment and implementation of the Program, and the bases of those decisions, including how workplace health and safety and other risks relating to the Program were identified, assessed and managed;’
This paragraph is the one that could have the most long-term effect on governance, due diligence and procurement. There are many suggestions on these issues in the sphere of project management but trying to keep the discussion in OHS, there are some useful comments on the Government procurement of services. Australia’s Federal Safety Commission acknowledges that procurement is an important stage in project design. WorkSafe Victoria’s “handbook for the public sector – health and safety in construction procurement” says
“As procurers, governments can promote better health and safety by requiring projects to include a range of safety measures, such as specifying the safety budget, building layout or the use of certain
2014 is going to present tough challenges to Australia’s politicians and corporate leaders. The Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program, in particular, is going to illustrate and perhaps generate ideological conflict.
The Home Insulation Program (HIP) was established quickly to address a looming economic crisis. Politicians and business leaders wanted Australia to avoid the global recession and they needed creative solutions. Various importance governance and safety elements appear to have been sacrificed to achieve the economic ends. In 2014, the politicians of the time and bureaucrats will be grilled over why they made these decisions. Various inquiries have already identified that these decisions contributed to the deaths of four young workers. In 2014, these decision- and policy-makers will be held to account for the fatal consequences of their economic decisions.
There has long been a conflict between the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of safe working conditions. The Royal Commission, and the surrounding debate, is likely to place this conflict squarely in the highest levels of Australia’s government and public service. Below are some of the issues that the Australian government and business sector are likely to face in 2014. Continue reading “Moral conflicts in store for Australian politicians and bureaucrats”
Safety professionals often pay over A$1000 upwards to attend a workplace safety conference. Most of these conferences are overpriced and serious questions should be asked about the knowledge return-on-investment. It seems occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals are always looking for the next big thing, the “edge” but frequently they forget that value of old information, the value of human worth, the reason for joining the OHS profession in the first place.
Recently I attended an Annual Remembrance Service that commemorated those people who have died at work. The theme of the service was the importance of listening, particularly, to the widows and widowers, those who are still experiencing the pain of grief and, often, the injustice of OHS regulators and workers’ compensations schemes. The service was called “Remembering and celebrating the lives of those who have died from work-related causes” and conducted by the Creative Ministries Network and Work-related Grief Support, was small, touching and not half as religious as it could have been. Continue reading “Remembering why you do what you do”
At many occupational health and safety seminars and conferences in Australia there is often an OHS professional in the audience who says that jail time is the only real and effective deterrent for those breaking safety laws, usually in the context of gross negligence, reckless endangerment or industrial manslaughter. The threat of imprisonment is indeed a deterrent for some people.
But sometimes there is an OHS professional who colours their call for imprisonment by suggesting that, once in prison, offenders should be harmed or even raped. An example appeared on an OHS discussion forum within the last week. The comment, on an issue of fall prevention, included this phrase:
“Only need to send a few for a short holiday with “Bubba” and some soap on a rope, to get the message across to the masses.”
This person is suggesting that the deprivation of liberty is insufficient punishment for an OHS offence and that the offender should also be raped. What does this say about the real values of a person whose profession is based on harm minimisation and the elimination of hazards?
If, as The Guardian newspaper says, the two main principles for jail are “in order to punish wrongdoers, and to remove the danger they would otherwise pose to the wider world”, where is the justification for abuse?
The “Bubba” comment above, and many similar comments I have heard over the years, may be an extension of the cynicism that many OHS professionals seem to acquire over their time in the profession. But it is also offensive and shows an approach to humanity that I do not share and that I believe has no place in the OHS profession, or anywhere, for that matter. It is lazy thinking, and these thoughts come from those who advise Australian businesses! It is a shameful situation.