Sometimes you need to stop what you’re doing and reflect. This could relate to life, work, values or more. I was invited to talk to the Central Safety Group (CSG) this week on “Challenging Mainstream OHS Views”, so I stopped, thought, and jotted down some personal opinions to discuss. It was a helpful exercise.
Recently, sentencing in a court case in Melbourne has generated much online chatter about excessive working hours and the exploitation of workers in a small law practice. One report of the $A50,000 fine against Erudite Legal says that the company:
“…forced a junior lawyer to work up to 24-hour days and watch an ice hockey movie at 1am so she could understand her boss’ philosophical position”.
Other media reports provide more details of the successful prosecution, but the occupational health and safety (OHS) context is mostly absent.
This weekend, all the talk in Australia has been about the massive and unexpected electoral swing to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the federal election. Most pundits were expecting a majority government, at least, but now the ALP has a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. Possible constraints from a new Senate have yet to be identified.
But this blog is about occupational health and safety (OHS), so why start with an election summary? Industrial relations and, therefore, OHS were almost entirely absent from the election campaigns.
WorkSafe Vcitoria’s annual awards night for 2024 was held last week. It was an unexceptional night, with around 400 in the audience, most of whom were award finalists and their colleagues. Although unexceptional, it was not dull, as the finalists’ stories were often compelling. However, the event needs a boost. Perhaps not to the flamboyance of earlier this century with over 1000 attendees and dancing into the night, as that would not be a good political look, but it needs something.
What was not notable was the politics of the evening.
Michael Belzer and Michael Quinlan have outlined the economics of occupational health and safety (OHS) in the editorial of the latest edition of The Economic and Labour Relations Review. This contrasts with earlier research about the business case for OHS as it broadens the pool of influences more broadly. They write:
“The economic approaches to OHS in the papers in this issue identify externalities and suggest that incomplete market analysis has created an inappropriate permission to ignore uncompensated costs in labour, product, and service markets; these incomplete markets lead to greater social risk as well as inefficiency. More integrated understandings of OHS are challenging but research performed without them leads to narrow and partial understandings.” (page 483)
The most common question occupational health and safety (OHS) consultants receive from clients is, “Do I comply with the law?” This request is telling because the client starts from a legal rather than a safety base. This is not surprising, as OHS commentary is dominated by lawyers whose focus is on minimizing their clients’ exposure to prosecution.
The political upheavals in the United States and the changes to corporate ideologies are concerning, primarily because of the potential infection of other nations. Businesses are not as globally connected as much of the media coverage implies. Still, Australian businesses watch the actions of global companies, and Amazon has been prominent in workplace and occupational health and safety (OHS) practices.
Recently, the US Senate Labor Committee released a damning report into Amazon’s high workplace injury rates, which includes important information for similar industries in local jurisdictions.
