New psychosocial podcast series

Australian employers continue to struggle to understand #psychosocial hazards and psychological harm. A lot of advice competes, conflicts and confuses. So, Michael Plowright and I are joining the effort to make sense of this #mentalhealthatwork challenge in a lively, plain-English way.

You may already follow me through this blog’s SoundCloud account, but this new four-episode podcast series – Safe Work, Real Talk – offers new plain-English perspectives and, we hope,m solutions, or at least pathways.

We’ll talk about #Leadership, what went wrong, what went right, the unhelpful conflict between #HR and #OHS, and return-to-work.

The first episode will be out shortly, with the remaining three episodes rolled out in support of National Safe Work Month.

If you have any questions about work-related psychosocial and psychological issues, email them to this link, and we will try to answer them “on-air”.

Kevin Jones

Psychosocial Risk Isn’t Special – Start With Hazard Identification

A LinkedIn colleague said this to me recently in a thread I started:

“I can’t see the logic in not integrating psychosocial hazards into the risk assessment process. The scope and complexity of the org will obvs have an impact but on one hand you’re saying employers have to manage both physical and psychosocial hazards/controls, but not to use the same process. And while we’re at it, that’s HR’s responsibility so it’s not on us. I say engage, embrace and guide the entire leadership team (HR included) in the process. As to why you wouldn’t use the risk assessment process I’m keen to know how you demonstrate you’ve used the hierarchy of control and reduced the risk alarp.” (slight edits)

Here is my response and clarification.

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

Wellness Is Not Safety and Employers Can No Longer Avoid Their Duty

For a country with clear health and safety obligations for almost half a century, it’s remarkable how often Australia still hears employers say they’re “unsure” what psychological health and safety requires.  The duty has never been ambiguous.  Employers must provide work that is safe and healthy and free from risks so far as is reasonably practicable.  That obligation to prevent psychosocial hazards, the precursors to psychological ill-health, has been sitting in legislation since the 1970s and 1980s.  It didn’t suddenly appear.  It didn’t evolve spontaneously out of the primordial ooze.  For those of us under the age of 70, it has always been there.

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

Understanding How Work-From-Home Reshapes Psychosocial and Safety Obligations

Yesterday I posed the following questions for Victoria’s upcoming Parliamentary Committee inquiry into proposed work-from-home (WFH) laws.

  • Does WFH increase or reduce psychosocial harm?
  • Does WFH improve or worsen fatigue, workload, or burnout?
  • Does WFH reduce commuting‑related risks (not just monetary costs)?
  • Does remote work affect hazard reporting or supervision?
  • Does WFH change the risk profile for vulnerable workers?

Below I offer some answers.

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

Rediscovering the “Radical” Power of Ordinary Conversation

Day one of PHSCon felt less like the unveiling of a new paradigm and more like a reminder that the fundamentals of good work have been obvious for a long time. The opening session positioned the conference as part of a broader push to move beyond bare compliance and towards more humane, evidence‑based ways of organising work. Conference chair and author Dr Kat Page set the tone by describing how her book Good Work emerged from watching COVID‑era decisions about job design, workload and leadership either amplify or buffer psychological harm. She framed both the book and the conference as an attempt to offer collective agency and hope, a space where practitioners, leaders and academics could connect stories, research and practice in ways that make better work design feel possible rather than theoretical. Conference delegates received a free copy of the book.

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

Burnout Isn’t Complex When You Look Through an OHS Lens

I want to be optimistic about workplace mental health in the lead-up to my reporting on a sihgnificant psychological/psychososcial conference in September – PHSCon. But reading the newspapers demoralises me, as burnout stories framed through HR ignore OHS obligations and preventive design. I suppose I could eliminate the psychological hazard by stopping reading the newspapers (like many others have), but then how would I know what others think about occupational health and safety (OHS) and what is being said and advised to employers and the community?

Recently, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers contained an article called “Hidden cost of our burnout culture” – a typical example of a Human Resources (HR) and leadership-based perspective. Burnout stories framed through HR ignore OHS obligations and preventive design.

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

Brodie Panlock, workplace bullying and the limits of outrage

Workplace bullying has a habit of becoming visible only after harm has already occurred. In 2010, the 2006 death of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock became the point at which many Australians first understood that bullying at work was not merely a Human Resources (HR) irritant, or a personality weakness, or one of those unfortunate things that happens in a rough workplace somewhere else. It was an occupational health and safety (OHS) issue.

Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.

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