In just over a month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will hand down the 2026 Federal Budget. While political attention will focus on cost‑of‑living pressures and international instability, the Budget also presents an opportunity to rethink how Australia could treat occupational health and safety (OHS) as an economic lever instead of just a business cost.
One of the most important resources for occupational health and safety (OHS) advocates worldwide is the HESAMag, produced by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI). There are several important articles in the current issue, including an interview with Giulio Romani, the Confederal Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation.
One of his areas of concern is the challenges faced in OHS advocacy, an issue that may be better resolved with some out-of-the-box creative thinking. He said:
Over twenty years, Finland decreased the male suicide rate by 61%. What can the rest of us learn from that country’s achievement?
[The following article discusses the management of suicide and suicide prevention.]
Many internet search engines and browsers offer an Artificial Intelligence (AI) search function. The answers seem palatable, convenient and accurate, but are they? I tested the AI search function to see for myself.
Continue reading “Why AI Still Can’t Tell What SafetyAtWorkBlog Really Thinks”Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers and economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz are old friends. One of their conversations was turned into the lead article in the February edition of The Monthly (paywalled). Several of their thoughts impinge on how occupational health and safety (OHS) laws are applied and may be reformed.
Canada’s Institute for Work & Health (IWH) has produced a bold forecast of the future of occupational health and safety (OHS) in its new report, “Work & health 2040: Anticipating changes impacting the futures of occupational health and safety”. The seven trends identified are not greatly surprising. Change is needed to address these trends, but who should, and how to, make the changes is unclear.
Every few years, a new global initiative arrives promising to reshape corporate behaviour. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were meant to align business with human well-being. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) promised transparency. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting was sold as the market‑friendly mechanism that would finally make corporations care about people and the planet.
Yet here we are, decades into these frameworks, and the pattern of harm inside workplaces looks remarkably familiar. Catastrophic failures still occur in companies with immaculate sustainability reports. Precarious work continues to expand. Psychosocial harm is rising, not falling. And the gap between what corporations say and what they do has never been wider.
The uncomfortable truth is that these global initiatives are not designed to prevent harm. They are designed to signal responsibility without redistributing power. And harm prevention, as we know from decades of occupational health and safety (OHS) experience, is fundamentally a question of power.
