Business ethics has never been a significant focus of occupational health and safety (OHS) organisations or regulators beyond what the law says. OHS advisers in companies and through consultation constantly address ethical or unethical behaviour, even though this is rarely discussed at the academic level or outside of the possibility of prosecution. Over the last four decades, neoliberal ideology and policies have given OHS only grudging attention, if any at all. Neoliberalism is gaining more attention in the OHS literature as the socioeconomic and political sources of hazards are finally receiving serious attention. However, most OHS people cannot remember a world before neoliberalism. It is important to remember that trust in the “free market’ on which neoliberalism was built, the promises of wealth for all, and reflect on how worker health and safety suffered.
Category: health
Another case study on a readily preventable work-related suicide
On August 29, 2019, Scott Jordan returned to his Ballarat home from work. He noticed his wife’s car was not parked in its usual location. Scott walked through to the shed looking for Karla Jordan and found her dead by suicide with a notebook on the floor nearby. The Victorian Coroner’s Prevention Unit “considered Ms Jordan’s workplace environment was the primary stressor in the lead up to her acute mental health decline and suicide”. The Coroner’s findings provide an important case study for examining psychosocial hazards in the workplace.
What the hell is happening with OHS in New Zealand?
The latest government in New Zealand has some wild ideas and policies. Surprisingly, some involve reforming occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. Reform is usually positive as it progresses laws and fixes errors, oversights, or shortcomings, but this NZ activity is different. To start, it is necessary to look at the policies and some of the media statements from the current Prime Minister and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety.
Cost estimation, safety and economists
American legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein does not write about occupational health and safety (OHS) directly, but he writes about the society in which OHS operates. In November 2022, he reviewed an economics book in an article called “Accounting for the Human Cost.” OHS may have a strong moral core, but one can argue that it is more of an economic discipline due to the necessity for analyzing costs and benefits to gauge compliance with laws and regulations.
OHS opportunity for progress sidestepped
The Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI) has produced a useful analysis on hybrid and flexible work practices. However, as with most of the media coverage and commentary on workplace flexibility and working from home, the discussion of the psychological health benefits and risks is rudimentary and seems to ignore renewed employer duties under the occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.
Established OHS knowledge needs a boost
Workplace psychological health has been dominated by wellness advocates for several decades. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is seen by many as an interloper with “new” regulations that impose rules, expectations, notifications, and records on a corporate wellness sector that has been hugely influential on employers’ perspectives of mental health at work. This interjection by OHS “upstarts” does not stand up to examination. Social determinants of health have included work factors for many years. Richard G Wilkinson wrote about the psychosocial causes of illness in 1997, providing a helpful perspective applicable today.
A library in just one Working From Home article
This newspaper article on the current status of Working from Home (paywalled) was satisfying on at least two levels: it was a sensible report on most of the benefits of this type of work arrangement and showed the limitations of newspaper publishing.