human resources – Page 24 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Internet addiction in the workplace

If the prevention of depression is better than trying to treat it, how should a safety manager proceed when permissible work practices may be contributing to mental health problems in some workers?

A new UK study announced today says “that excessive internet use is associated with depression”. The researchers say that

“…some users have developed a compulsive internet habit, whereby they replace real-life social interaction with online chat rooms and social networking sites. The results suggest that this type of addictive surfing can have a serious impact on mental health.” Continue reading “Internet addiction in the workplace”

Dipping into workplace violence

Jeff Sparrow recently gained considerable media attention with his book that reflected on violence in society. Yossi Berger once described occupational health and safety as a “kind of violence” in his book of that title. There is a lot of research into occupational violence, much of it from the United States which, to some extent, has an unrepresentative view of this hazard.

An interesting, and brief, discussion on the matter is a chapter in the book “Perspectives on Violent and Violent Death” published by Baywood Publishing. The existential perspective of one particular chapter may make it impractical for safety management purposes but as a background article for provoking thought, it is very good.

Without this chapter I would not have found the work of C E Newhill* into client violence in social work or that of C L Charles. Charles identified some factors that have contributed to the “anger epidemic” which may provide some clues on understanding occupational violence. These are listed below:

Compressed time
Communication overload
Disconnectedness Continue reading “Dipping into workplace violence”

Work/life balance needs to grow into sustainability

Just as government is reigning in the excesses of the financial sector over the last decade or so, there is a strong movement to pull back on the workload excesses. Some of this is through the work/life balance movement.

In terms of occupational health and safety, this movement has a strong base that is reflected in a lot of OHS legislation where individual employees have a responsibility to ensure they are working safely and not putting themselves at risk. This can be a very difficult obligation when one is working in an organisation that does not grant safety or mental health or its social obligations much weight.

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

What would you do if a work colleague strips, screams, acts “like a child having a tantrum”, starts to sing and then jumps out of a window to her death? That is the situation that was faced by staff at the Sydney office of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in December 2005.

Only days earlier, 34-year-old Rebekah Lawrence, had participated in a self-development course called “The Turning Point” conducted by Zoeros P/L trading as People KnowHow. The course, according to one media report, the course included a session called “The Inner Child”

“in which those taking part were encouraged to develop a dialogue between their child and adult selves.”

Lawrence’s actions just before her death mirrored some of the course teaching.

PeopleKnowHow’s website has closed down with an announcement that all of its courses are under review. Other organisations that provide similar courses are running for cover. Transformational Learning Australia has said it

“…no longer has a professional relationship, affiliation or any other connection with People Knowhow.” [emphasis added]

TLA also says any relationship ended in 2005. That the company has felt it necessary to make a media statement about the end of the relationship shows the extent of the effect of Rebekah Lawrence’s death on this industry sector.

TLA goes on to say that

Our organisation does not accept participants who have a recent history of chronic mental illness, participants under the care of a treating professional who have not obtained that professional’s consent to participate, or people who demonstrate a propensity towards psychological fragility or a significant lack of cohesion during the introductory sessions of the program.”

The New South Wales Coroner found that in the absence of any history of psychosis in Rebekah Lawrence that,

The evidence is overwhelming that the act of stepping out of a window to her death was the tragic culmination of a developing psychosis that had its origins in a self-development course known as ‘The Turning Point’ conducted by Zoeros Pty. Ltd, trading under the name of ‘People Know-How” on the 14, 16, 17 and 18 December 2005.

The full coronial findings are difficult to read due to the personal details of Lawrence’s life, her relationship with her husband David and the general picture of her personality that comes through. An upsetting and enlightening interview with David Booth is available online from earlier in the investigation process.

The findings also provide considerable detail to the components of the course that Lawrence undertook. There is a greater level of detail than would be expected to be known by someone signing up for such a course and this is where the lessons can be learnt for the OHS professional and safety manager.

It has become common in many corporations who are trying to improve or introduce a positive workplace culture, to supplement their own efforts with “self-help” or “self-awareness” courses. Lawrence’s death has highlighted the lack of regulation or accountability in some sectors of this industry. This also highlights the need for people managers to thoroughly investigate such courses to ensure that good intentions are not likely to increase the risk of harm or damage to the employees who participate.

An audio report on the Coroner’s findings is available online.

Counselling Services

Many workplaces often provide access to counselling services through schemes such as Employment Assistance Programs. The Coroner’s recommendations have some direct bearing on the issue of “counsellors”.

“The Executive Director of the Australian Psychological Society, Professor Lynne Littlefield pointed out that there are no legal restrictions in Australia for practising under the title ‘psychotherapist’ or under the title ‘counsellor’ and therefore no public safeguards against untrained or incompetent practitioners in this field.

Professor Littlefield pointed out that although there were many skilled counsellors and psychotherapists, there were also many whose competence is questionable and without any regulating mechanisms to stipulate the required training and levels of competence, there was no way of protecting the public from these poorly trained practitioners.”

Rebekah Lawrence’s death is receiving considerable media coverage in Australia at the moment and the New South Wales Government is carefully considering the Coroner’s recommendations concerning the regulation of some areas of the self-development industry. Employers and safety professionals are going to have a very different set of criteria shortly from which such workplace-related courses need to be evaluated.

One media report has indicated the start of the ramifications of this unfortunate death:

“The NSW Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said she had asked her department for ”urgent advice” on the case and would consider the coroner’s recommendations. A code of conduct for counsellors and psychologists had already been implemented and the Health Care Complaints Commission now monitored practitioners.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists called for closer monitoring and accountability of self-help and psychotherapeutic courses.”

Kevin Jones

The Senate inquiry into Australia Post should provide important lessons in OHS, HR, RTW and LTIFR

For decades OHS professionals have known that the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) does not accurately measure the safety performance of an organisation. LTIFR can be manipulated and is responsive to single catastrophic events. The consensus has always been that LTIFR is one indicator of safety improvement but should not be relied upon at that same time as acknowledging there is no real alternative to the LTIFR.

From an Australian Senate inquiry that is currently running and sparked, to some extent, from an ABC current affairs report in September 2009, it seems that the Australian postal service, Australia Post, is doing just that.

One of the attractive managerial elements of LTIFR is that it provides a figure from which incentives and rewards can be provided. This is attractive to both OHS managers and employers because LTIFR provides a tangible benchmark.

Safety incentives and rewards have been contentious for decades but have come to the fore in this inquiry due to this type of accusation from one of the Australian trade unions, the CEPU ( Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union):

Australia Post boasts that Lost Time Injury records are the lowest they’ve ever been. But those results haven’t been achieved by a safer workplace – rather by manipulating the injury management process to force people back to work and deny employees their rights.

Meanwhile, the same managers receive cash bonuses for reducing Lost Time Injuries in their sections.

The CEPU has documented extensive abuse of the injury management process.

Facility Nominated Doctors

Workers are being bullied into attending company-paid Facility Nominated Doctors.

FNDs are instructed to get people eligible for workers compensation straight back to work, before they’ve had to time to recover.

Australia Post has a commercial contract with InjuryNET, a private organisation, which gives Post access to a network of doctors.

InjuryNET guarantees it will reduce Lost Time Injury rates, lost hours and duration until return to pre-injury duties.

Where workers are not eligible for workers compensation, company doctors are instructed to find them unfit for duties, so Australia Post can direct them off work without pay, or sack them.

The CEPU has obtained email evidence that managers use the injury management process to get rid of ‘undesireable’ (sic) employees.

This is the language Australia Post management uses to describe injured workers.

Many of the attachment the CEPU has provided to the Senate Inquiry are not being publicly released because they include details of many cases of alleged mismanagement. The CEPU has posted an example of Australia Post’s approach to injured workers on Youtube.

The Australian Government responded to pressure from unions and elsewhere and established the Senate inquiry with the following terms of reference.

“The practices and procedures of Australia Post over the past three years in relation to the treatment of injured and ill workers, including but not limited to:

allegations that injured staff have been forced back to work in inappropriate duties before they have recovered from workplace injuries:

the desirability of salary bonus policies that reward managers based on lost time injury management and the extent to which this policy may impact on return to work recommendations of managers to achieve bonus targets:

the commercial arrangements that exist between Australia Post and InjuryNet and the quality of the service provided by the organisation:

allegations of Compensation Delegates using fitness for duty assessments from Facility Nominated doctors to justify refusal of compensation claims and whether the practice is in breach of the Privacy Act 1988 and Comcare policies:

allegations that Australia Post has no legal authority to demand medical assessments of injured workers when they are clearly workers’ compensation matters:

the frequency of referrals to InjuryNet Doctors and the policies and circumstances behind the practices:

the comparison of outcomes arising from circumstances when an injured worker attends a facility nominated doctor, their own doctor and when an employee attends both, the practices in place to manage conflicting medical recommendations in the workplace; and

any related matters.”

Some submissions to the inquiry have been made publicly available, including a submission by Australia Post. The company responds to each of the allegations included in the terms of reference. A frequent response from Australia Post is that its actions do not breach the law be it privacy legislation, workers’ compensation or its own policies. This defence is common for companies and organisations but it is often contrary to many of the arguments from the workers.

In the video above Brett Griffin describes the treatment from his managers at Australia Post as “wrong”. It may be wrong but is it illegal? This is the question that most Courts and judges face.

However this inquiry ends, the management of its employees seems not to have been to an acceptable level. The safety and HR Management system seems not to have been working properly. The evidence for this is the number of disgruntled employees and ex-workers and the existence of the Senate inquiry.

Clearly Australia Post’s conduct was not “best practice”. In the company’s recently released annual Corporate Responsibility Report it says this under the section for People Management:

“The effective management of our human resources is, therefore, of vital importance to our brand strength, community engagement, service performance and financial returns. Over several decades, we have developed a set of policies and programs that are designed to protect and reward our people – including progressive industrial relations policies; proactive management of occupational health and safety; continuation of our successful injury management, rehabilitation and return-to-work programs; a strong commitment to diversity; structured workplace learning; and effective grievance procedures.”

RTWMatters said in an article on its website (subscriber access only) in late September 2009 this about Australia Post:

“Some of our team have had first-hand experience with Australia Post’s return to work. In the select number of cases they have dealt with the Australia Post system has been found to be frustrating and seemingly lacking in genuine interest in the employee. Perhaps our team has seen only isolated examples, not representative of the general approach – if so our opinion may be swayed by the appropriate data. Our experience is that the Australia Post system focuses on ‘process before people’.”

The “Senate Inquiry into Australia Post’s treatment of injured and ill workers” will undoubtedly provide important lessons that will be relevant globally on safety incentives, LTIFRs, return-to-work practices in a large organisation, rehabilitation provider conduct, and, most importantly, how to manage injured staff. What should not be lost in any inquiry of this type is that the inquiry exists because people have been hurt and, they feel, unfairly treated.

Kevin Jones

[Kevin Jones is a feature writer for RTWMatters]

All non-confidential submissions can be accessed as they are uploaded at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/aust_post/submissions.htm

The biggest management hurdle on workplace smoking

Smoking in the workplace is increasingly banned in countries around the world. The mob of smokers in fire escapes and outside office building front doors are common occurences. There is no denying that smoking is hazardous but this established fact does not seem to help with the regular management challenge – smokers work less than non-smokers and non-smokers resent this.

A recent study of workplace smoking in over a dozen countries published in the online edition International Journal of Public Health illustrates the continuing struggle.

“The study also found that overall employees estimated spending an average of one hour per day smoking at work, but most employees (almost 70 percent) did not believe that smoking had a negative financial impact on their employer. However, about half of employers interviewed did believe that smoking had a negative financial impact on their organization.”

This people management issue often bleeds into the realm of the OHS manager as it is the health risks to the smokers and other workers than generated this division. Clearly these statistics show the problem persists.

The tension comes from non-smokers working a full shift when a non-smoker is permitted to work at the same tasks for the same pay but work one hour less. No companies have been able to solve this tension in any way other than encouraging smokers to quit smoking. It may be attractive to OHS managers to leave this issue to the HR managers to struggle with but when planning any anti-smoking programs, this tension needs to be anticipated by OHS professionals.

“Several previous studies indicate that despite the beliefs of smoking employees and some employers in our study, smoking does have a substantial negative impact on a business’ finances,” [Michael Halpern PhD of RTI International] said. “More research needs to be done to quantify the economic impacts of workplace smoking and educate both employers and employees on those effects.”

Halpern’s comments illustrate a major limitation to the thinking of researchers on this issue and other similar workplace matters. Workers’ health and compensation costs are rarely included in such surveys as business economics look at salary and time management issues yet business admits that worker health costs are part of the decision-making processes.

It is not that worker health costs are not quantifiable. There is plenty of premium data, insurance figures and public health costs to include in the calculations but largely this data is ignored. The researchers could take a two stage approach of, what they consider, primary labour costs with a mention of secondary health and compensation costs. It would be possible to say something like “labour costs equate to $xxx – a substantial business costs but if workers’ compensation costs are included, an even more startling picture emerges…”

OHS professionals know that their job is not really one of handling safety issues exclusively but of managing safety within the business context. To achieve this OHS professionals must be alert to all elements of business operation.

Kevin Jones

Australia’s Go Home on Time Day

November 26 2009 was Go Home On Time Day in Australia. The intention of this day, organised by The Australia Institute, was to highlight the difficulty many workers face in a achieving this seemingly simple task. The Australia Institute’s expresses the aims this way:

The typical full-time employee is working 70 minutes of unpaid overtime a day, which equates to 33 eight-hour days per year, or six and a half standard working weeks.

Across the workforce, the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime worked per year is a $72 billion gift to employers and means that 6% of our economy depends on free labour.

Converting unpaid overtime into full time jobs would create 1.1 million new jobs

Unpaid overtime harms our health, our personal relationships, our communities and our workplaces

The work/life balance advocates would say not doing unpaid overtime as a regular part of the job is an important balancing technique.

The Australia Institute has provided SafetyAtWorkBlog with some statistics from the special day’s 20,000 registered participants which may illustrate some of the difficulties of achieving that work/life balance.

Over 55% of registered participants managed to leave work at the contracted time on 26 November 2009. Of those who could not, almost 70% said they could not because they “had too much work to do”.

Of those who went home on time, these were the most common activities:

Spent time with family/played with kids
Exercised/went to the gym
Household jobs/chores
Caught up with friends
Walked the dog

Those who admitted to working unpaid overtime (1836) gave the following reasons

To get the work done	86.5%
Because my boss/employer expects it	28.8%
To help colleagues	23.1%
To ensure my job is safe/secure	21.6%
To demonstrate how hard I work	14.2%
Because everyone else does it	13.6%

There seems to be only one genuinely positive and collegiate reason, to help colleagues. The others indicate job and personal insecurity, unreasonable workloads or bad time management on behalf of employees and employers.

The statistics are of mostly curiosity value but are further indications of the social structural problems that contribute to increased work mental health risks. Of those who signed up but could not get away from work, a couple of reasons given were

Boss knew I was trying to go home on time and loaded me up.
Management laughed.
My Boss said I was not to say the words out loud.

These days are intended to raise awareness of specific issues in society and Go Home On Time Day is a worthwhile addition but as with Asbestos Awareness Week, at some point awareness must move to action.

Kevin Jones

Category: human resources

Internet addiction in the workplace

Like this:

Dipping into workplace violence

Like this:

Work/life balance needs to grow into sustainability

Like this:

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

Counselling Services

Like this:

The Senate inquiry into Australia Post should provide important lessons in OHS, HR, RTW and LTIFR

Like this:

The biggest management hurdle on workplace smoking

Like this:

Australia’s Go Home on Time Day

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Counselling Services

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: