Category: evidence

Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister

“IMPROVED SAFETY FOR URANIUM WORKERS” is the headline of a media release from Australia’s Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson.  The 9 June 2011 statement concerns the positive initiative of new health monitoring for those workers in the uranium mining and milling industries, but it also betrays a perspective that is dominant in the thinking of national policymakers.

If we accept that a principal aim of occupational health and safety legislation is the prevention of harm*, then the initiative announced does not improve safety for uranium workers.  It collates evidence of harm in preparation for compensation.

Minister Ferguson says

“The health and safety of workers is always our first priority. [If ever there was a statement that is a red flag for suspicion, this is it] The new national register strengthens protections for employees over their working life by ensuring that data for monitoring radiation doses will follow them if they move across jobs and across jurisdictions. Wherever they go in Australia, workers will be able to access records that track complete dose histories to ensure their good health into the future. The national dose register is integral to ensuring we have a world class regulatory regime in place for uranium mining in Australia.”

This quote shows the classic leap from a pledge of no (or minimal) harm to the reality – a register of harm. Continue reading “Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister”

Workplace bullying survey of dubious value

A doomsaying workplace bullying survey is doing the rounds of the Australian media on 8 June 2011. The media release accompanying the survey (neither are yet available online), produced for a “web-based employment screening solution” WorkPro, says

“One quarter of employees (23%) say that they have been a victim of bullying or discrimination in the workplace in the last two years,…”

An equally valid interpretation from the same survey figures could be

“Three quarters of employees (76%) say that they have not been a victim of bullying or discrimination in the workplace in the last two years.”

The survey is terrific news. Workplace bullying may not be as big a problem in the workplace as recent media reports have led us to believe. But the survey takes the negative perspective and it is the negative that is being reiterated in the media. Continue reading “Workplace bullying survey of dubious value”

The Commercial Kitchens Campaign needs further examination

Why is a government workers’ compensation agency promoting first aid when a different agency has had that role for over twenty years?  And why do the program’s first aid kits contain commercial products that are no more effective in the first aid treatment of burns than water from the tap?

On May 12 2011, WorkCover SA launched, in conjunction with the Julian Burton Burns Trust, the Commercial Kitchens Campaign.  Burns are a major feature of this campaign with 500 Commercial Kitchens Burns Packs being distributed free to restaurants and cafes in South Australia.

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that these kits contain a Burns First Aid Kit developed by A/Prof John Greenwood, the Julian Burton Burns Trust and St John Ambulance Australia which includes the following items:

  • burnaid gel
  • burnaid dressing,
  • a plastic sheet,
  • sterile towel,
  • tape, and
  • step by step directions written by A/Prof John Greenwood.

The odd thing about this initiative is that medical research has shown that burnaid gels are less effective than cool running water for the first aid treatment of burns.  In the journal Wound Practice and Research (Vol 18 Number 1 – Feb 2010) Australian researchers Leila Cuttle and Roy M Kimble wrote in “First Aid treatment of burn injuries” that

“The widespread use of such dressings [Burnaid is specifically referenced] (which have now even penetrated the first aid market) is alarming considering the lack of studies which support their use.” Continue reading “The Commercial Kitchens Campaign needs further examination”

Source data from within the quad bike safety stoush

SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to contact the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries’ Rhys Griffiths this afternoon seeking clarification of the FCAI’s withdrawal from quad bike safety discussions reported yesterday.  Prior to withdrawing, a document was read to the quad bike safety working group.  The document has not been released publicly but below is the gist.

Further down the page is an edited version of the letter that the Australian Centre for Agricultural Health and Safety (AgHealth) has reportedly sent to “290 rural motorcycle dealers”.  According to Rhys Griffiths being quoted in The Weekly Times, this letter

“”…basically says dealers could be looking at law suits for not fitting devices on ATVs…  This is in direct contradiction to the manufacturers’ recommendations, so the dealer is caught in the middle.” Continue reading “Source data from within the quad bike safety stoush”

Quad bike manufacturers walk out of safety working group

In early 2010, Australia’s Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities (HWSA) established a trans-Tasman working party to look at the safety issues of quad bikes, often called all-terrain vehicles.  The working group is in the final stages of its report and a major motorcycle industry representative has not liked the findings and has apparently withdrawn from the working group.  A report on the increasing tensions was published in  this week’s The Weekly Times.  SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that the quad bike industry representative has walked out in protest.

Let’s look at what HWSA said about the working group in May 2010:

“HWSA Chair, John Watson, said every farming fatality leads to immeasurable suffering in close-knit rural communities and these figures are not acceptable.
“The working group is expected to deliver solutions to safety problems associated with use of quad bikes on farm properties and raise awareness of practical risk controls,…
“The group will look at issues that include design, safety equipment, training and instruction, aftermarket accessories, safe use and point of sale,….
“The joint program of work will be delivered through an Industry Solutions Program where industry and regulators work together to address high risk safety issues – an initiative that has successfully provided practical solutions to a number of issues across many industries.
“The working group is focused on producing tangible and sustainable safety outcomes across the farming and agricultural industry where quad bikes are commonly used….”
Of significance in that media release is that Chief Executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) Andrew McKellar said

“It is our objective that all quad bike users are well informed of the manufacturer’s recommendations in relation to the safe use of these vehicles…”

The sticking point in the working group was, according to The Weekly Times, that

“”…the committee was expected to back the recommendation to “consider fitting an anti-crush device”, the strongest position yet for roll-over protection.”

The committee did recommend this and apparently the FCAI walked.  Attempts have been made to contact the FCAI to confirm their action and their objections. Continue reading “Quad bike manufacturers walk out of safety working group”

Compliance or Confidence?

A reader has been inspired by recent articles discussing OHS compliance to contribute their own article on some of the issues raised:

“Compliance”, while being a way forward in OHS, misses the mark. We should ask the question: Why do regulators want compliance anyway?

Compliance, or conformance as is alternatively used, is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. In haste to improve the world via compliance we sometimes forget that.

Compliance presumes that rules laid down by regulators are a “good enough” way to achieve safety. Compliance’s foundation is the minimum-standard. Foundations cannot be anything like the maximum-standard because best practice regulation knowledge backs up our common sense that maximum standards would be bad and expensive. But wouldn’t it be comforting to be able to encourage and get more than just the minimum?

Some who have felt the stick end of compliance might think some regulators believe their rules and guides are the only path to safety. But the fact is that even the best codes & regulations have flaws; they do change. Furthermore, exemptions get provided, position papers and codes of practice get written to fill the gaps. And they get re-written. Sometimes the reasons for a rule are lost in time. Shamefully, sometimes valid reasons never existed. Sometimes rules are written to serve the purposes of some over others or to empower authority. We can know this because COAG and the OBPR have to warn against it. Continue reading “Compliance or Confidence?”

Ergonomics advice does not always reflect the reality

It is common for companies to invest in expensive office furniture in the belief that the furniture will encourage the worker to undertake tasks more safely.  In most circumstances, this is a waste of money and a major distraction from managing safety throughout workplaces.

The safety message is also being confused by some OHS regulators.  It is well-established that injured backs and other musculoskeletal injuries improve with movement rather than the traditional bed-rest.  However this encouragement to move is not reflected in most of the advice for configuring workstations.  Continue reading “Ergonomics advice does not always reflect the reality”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd