human rights – Page 6 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Principled pragmatism – Human Rights included in OHS Due Diligence

On 16 August 2012, Australia’s Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, said in Parliament, in relation to new asbestos management initiatives, that”

“On 14 March this year, in my first ministerial statement on workplace health and safety in this place, I said that every Australian who goes to work should return home safely. I know both sides of the House endorse this universal human right and today I reaffirm our commitment to this principle…” (page 13, Hansard. emphasis added)

It is very common to hear safety professionals and company executives echo the statement that workers should return home in an uninjured state. But few would be aware or, perhaps, agree that this is a human rights statement.

Following an earlier blog post, one reader has pointed us to the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights that were released in 2011. According to the author, John Ruggie, these principles:

“… highlight what steps States should take to foster business respect for human rights; provide a blueprint for companies to know and show that they respect human rights, and reduce the risk of causing or contributing to human rights harm; and constitute a set of benchmarks for stakeholders to assess business respect for human rights. Continue reading “Principled pragmatism – Human Rights included in OHS Due Diligence”

Is safe work a basic, or fundamental, human right?

Early this century, according to a draft conference paper* in the SafetyAtWorkBlog archives, the late Eric Wigglesworth OAM posed the following question:

“In addition to our basic human rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, should there also be freedom from injury as a basic human right?”

The expectation of a safe and healthy work environment and a workplace without risk is often expressed as a human right, but is OHS a “human right” and what does it mean?

According to one website

“on June 29, 2008, the XVIII World Congress on Safety and Health at Work signed the Seoul Declaration on Safety and Health at Work.”

According to the International Labour Organisation

“…the Declaration also emphasizes that the right to a safe and healthy working environment should be recognized as a fundamental human right.”

The Seoul Declaration mentions human rights only in passing but the reference exists. It is one thing to make a statement and to do so on a global platform but to make this applicable at specific industrial or national levels seems different.

Workplace bullying in the police force illustrates the challenges of change management

There are two newspaper reports in Australia on 21 June 2012 about the Victorian Police Force that illustrate a fractious safety culture and a major organisational and ideological impediment to reducing workplace bullying.

The Australian article ” OPI concedes failure against force’s culture” (only available to subscribers) states that:

‘The Office of Police Integrity has conceded it and other corruption fighting measures have failed to root out the entrenched culture of reprisals and mateship in pockets of the Victoria Police that seriously harms the force….”

“The OPI says current law fails to deal with why whistleblowers are targeted. ‘‘The legislated protections against retaliation do not address the root cause of reprisal — a workplace culture of misguided loyalty,’’ it argues. “The protections are individualistic and short-term, tending to ‘look after’ victims and potential victims of reprisal rather than address why reprisal occurs.’’

“Despite the subsequent formation of the OPI and the beefing up of the Ombudsman’s powers, police still struggled to break free of the shackles of loyalty and the so-called brotherhood.’

The Age article, “A fifth of police bullied at work“, reports on a government survey circulated to 14,000 people.

‘The figures, provided to The Age, mean about 1250 of the 4200 police staff who completed the survey have seen bullying behaviour, while nearly 900 say they have been bullied.’ Continue reading “Workplace bullying in the police force illustrates the challenges of change management”

“Do some good” sounds more effective than achieving “zero harm”

The April 2012 edition of the UK magazine Training Journal makes a statement that is so simple, safety professionals should be kicking themselves. The safety profession is trying to change the measurement of safety from lag indicators to lead, from negatives to positives, from failures to successes and yet we continue to talk about zero harm. In Training Journal, Stuart Walkley states that

“…we face a new challenge, not just to ‘do no harm’ but to ‘do some good’ in the workplace, to create a healthy working environment that supports and contributes to our wellbeing.”

“Do some good”. I would rather be a Do Some Good Manager than a Zero Harm Manager. Focussing on the safety positive is what I do as a safety adviser but saying that my job is to “do some good” makes me feel better about my job than if I was minimising the negative, which is what the zero harm descriptor does.

Also, “do some good” sits well with the new approach that safety professionals are supposed to have, having to blend the psychosocial hazards into our risk controls approach. Continue reading ““Do some good” sounds more effective than achieving “zero harm””

Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal

On 18 October 2011, there was a brief discussion on workplace bullying in the ACT Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The question to Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, stemmed, ostensibly, from a recent WorkSafe ACT assessment of Canberra restaurants and food retailers. The assessment identified that:

“… only 66 per cent of food outlets were compliant with workplace bullying regulations.”

Such a statement needs considerable explanation to be of use in safety management but it led to a further question from Greens MP Meredith Hunter, one which indicates the confused status of workplace bullying control options.

“Minister, what consideration has the ACT government given to bullying as a ground for discrimination under the ACT’s Discrimination Act, which would give complainants and respondents to bullying complaints access to the Human Rights Commission’s investigation and conciliation functions and clear remedies for victimisation of a person making a complaint?”

It is unreasonable to expect that a Code of Practice on workplace bullying drafted under OHS laws would have the capacity to control the hazard, or provide sufficient guidance, when there are other avenues for restitution that are far more involved, such as discrimination and human rights commissions and tribunals. Continue reading “Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal”

WorkSafe Victoria provides insight into bullying investigations

It has been known for some time that OHS regulators struggle with handling reports of workplace bullying. Investigation of these hazards requires new inspectorate skills and take considerable time. Investigations of bullying involve people and this is always more involved than inspecting a missing machine guard or assessing the operation of a forklift. However, in an article in the Fairfax media on 24 July 2011 WorkSafe Victoria provides some surprising statistics that show a new perspective on workplace bullying and a contrast to recent statistics from Comcare.

The most significant statistic is that, of the 6000 reports of workplace bullying within the last 12 months, only 600 warrant further investigation and, of those, around 60 generate a physical inspection of the workplace. These statistics may indicate a range of issues:

OHS regulators require greater number of inspectors.
Workplace bullying is being critically misunderstood by the community.
Workers are confused about where to report their treatment and choose WorkSafe as the agency with the highest profile for workplace issues.
Other workplace-related agencies and authorities, such as Fair Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission, need to raise their profiles on this issue.

What is missing from the WorkSafe statistics above is the next level of intervention. What action is being taken by the inspector? Will prosecutions occur? Are improvement notices applied? There may be just as wide a gap between the 60 inspections and an appearance in court.

For readers’ interest searching for “bullying” on the Fair Work Australia site reveals no results however the Australian Human Rights Commission site results in several references – a clarification of violence, harassment and bullying (with links for further information) and a workplace bullying factsheet. Continue reading “WorkSafe Victoria provides insight into bullying investigations”

Only animals should die in abattoirs

The Sunday Age of 30 January 2011 ran an article about the status of workplace safety in some of Victoria’s abattoirs. The article has some similarities to the landmark investigations by Eric Schlosser into work practices and compensation issues related to meatworks in the United States.

The Sunday Age says that

“(Last financial year [2009/2010], there were 355 workers’ compensation claims in Victoria’s meat industry that required at least 10 days off work, or cost more than $580 in treatment, or both – almost one a day. Nationally the industry’s injury and illness rate remains twice as high as that in the construction industry, and four times the average of all workplaces.”

Many would say that meat work is “inherently dangerous” but in the article lawyer Trevor Monti, contests the perception

”Yes, it’s a difficult industry and the work can be hard,” he says. ”But with proper consideration given to the system of work, the risk of injury can be significantly reduced.”

This is a position with which OHS professionals and regulators would agree.

It is significant that, if the comparative figures quoted above by the Sunday Age are accurate, abattoirs do not receive the enforcement attention that the construction industry receives. Is it that the construction industry is largely unionised and the meat industry much less so? Is it that abattoirs are rorting the immigration visa system as asserted by the Australian Meat Industry? Continue reading “Only animals should die in abattoirs”

Category: human rights

Principled pragmatism – Human Rights included in OHS Due Diligence

Like this:

Is safe work a basic, or fundamental, human right?

Like this:

Workplace bullying in the police force illustrates the challenges of change management

Like this:

“Do some good” sounds more effective than achieving “zero harm”

Like this:

Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal

Like this:

WorkSafe Victoria provides insight into bullying investigations

Like this:

Only animals should die in abattoirs

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: