industrial relations – SafetyAtWorkBlog

An economics perspective on overwork

As Ingrid Robeyns’ Limitarianism book hits the Australian bookshops, an earlier examination of the role of excessive profits of “affluenza” from 2005 is worth considering. How does this relate to occupational health and safety (OHS)? The prevention of harm and the reduction of risk are determined by employers deciding on what they are prepared to spend on their workers’ safety, health, and welfare. Employers are looking desperately for effective ways to meet their new psychosocial harm prevention duties. Economists identified strategies in 2005.

Worker mobilisation and OHS

Occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals, like anyone else, base their decisions and advice primarily on their living memory. This partly explains the trend of emphasising “lived experience” sometimes over history or research. But it is understandable that we trust experiences from people face-to-face over what we read or what Grandad sort-of remembers from his first job. But history is important, especially when new sources of history are being unearthed or old sources are re-evaluated.

Recently, Michael Quinlan has been working on the recently digitised records of Australia in convict times and the 1800s. This research, conducted with colleagues, reveals new perspectives on industrial relations and worker health and safety. Recently, he presented to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) on Moibilising and Organising Workers – Lessons from Australian History 1788-1900. (I know, but bear with me).

HSRs are one option for Consultation, not the be-all and end-all

WorkSafe Victoria’s obsession with Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) was displayed at last week’s 2023 WorkSafe Awards night. The HSR of the Year nominations generated rowdiness in the audience, absent from the rest of the evening. The political context for emphasising HSRs in workplaces is understandable; there is always a close (and financial) relationship between trade unions and left-leaning political parties like that currently governing Victoria. HSRs and occupational health and safety (OHS) committees have been part of Victoria’s OHS legislation since 1985.

But only as one element of Consultation – a concept and principle that applies to all Victorian workplaces, not just those with trade union members or HSRs.

Where is the OHS debate on zero hours contracts?

Australia is experiencing a period of industrial reforms that is returning some power to workers and, according to some critics, the trade union movement – working hours, same pay for the same job, changing employment status, right to disconnect and more. A curious omission is a discussion of the concept of Zero Hours Contracts. This type of employment is crucial to improving mental health at work as it strengthens a worker’s job control, economy and security.

Purposeful or lazy discussion of Right-To-Disconnect and Working-From-Home?

There is a curious development in the current discussion in Australia about the newly introduced Right-To-Disconnect (RTD). Many are conflating RTD with Working From Home (WFH) – two separate but slightly overlapping changes to the world of work – which is impeding valid and necessary discussion.

Working From Home largely emerged as a response to the coronavirus pandemic and used flimsy work structures to provide business continuity. The WFH arrangements would have been unlikely to have been so widespread without the federal government’s investment in the National Broadband Network and the commercial growth in mobile phone communication infrastructure. However, that same infrastructure and investment have contributed to the problem that Right-To-Disconnect is intended to address.

Right-To-Disconnect changes need a strategy for acceptance

On February 11, 2024, the Insiders program had a curious discussion on the Right-To-Disconnect. Different generational perspectives, industry perspectives, and a curious denial were present.

Last week, the Australian Parliament passed workplace relations legislation that included a Right-To-Disconnect.

Insiders’ host, David Speers, asked Jacob Greber of the Australian Financial Review to explain the probable workplace changes (it was a poor summary):

The “Right to Disconnect” should have been “Obligation-To-Leave-Workers-Alone”

The Australian Greens announced on February 7, 2024, that the Right-To-Disconnect (RTD) bill would pass Parliament as part of workplace relations reforms. On February 8, 2024, the mainstream media wrote as if the laws had already been passed. However, several issues with these laws indicate they are unlikely to be applied in practice as widely as advocates claim and in the way anticipated.

The closer the RTD laws come to reality, the more useless they appear.

Category: industrial relations

An economics perspective on overwork

Like this:

Worker mobilisation and OHS

Like this:

HSRs are one option for Consultation, not the be-all and end-all

Like this:

Where is the OHS debate on zero hours contracts?

Like this:

Purposeful or lazy discussion of Right-To-Disconnect and Working-From-Home?

Like this:

Right-To-Disconnect changes need a strategy for acceptance

Like this:

The “Right to Disconnect” should have been “Obligation-To-Leave-Workers-Alone”

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: