insurance – Page 13 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

IOSH responds to OHS misperceptions

If ever there was an indication that the UK’s Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH) is the leading OHS organisation around the world, its entry into the OHS debate generated by the new UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the inquiry into OHS by Lord Young confirms it. “Rebalancing Act?” is a terrific summary of the major points of contention in the debate.

But, IOSH is also pursuing a reform that should have a much greater impact on the OHS profession. It is establishing a professional accreditation scheme that should set the benchmark for other OHS professional associations elsewhere, particularly in Australia. The scheme is not revolutionary but the process IOSH has used to build the scheme is admirable, especially when compared with the Australian HaSPA program that has stagnated, apparently, due to organisational politics. Continue reading “IOSH responds to OHS misperceptions”

The potential of Safety Impact Assessments

For some time, several countries have had legislation that require Environment Impact Assessments. Why don’t we have Safety Impact Assessments?

Often safety issues are applied retrospectively in project development. Often the application is impeded by actions or pathways that are already in place, although embryonic.

There is evidence that safety performance can be greatly improved by having safety considerations at the very early design stages of projects. Perhaps, rather than simply stating “safety is important”, the commitment to safety be more overtly stated in a formal manner at the project design stage. Continue reading “The potential of Safety Impact Assessments”

Death at work differs from work-related death

Often immediately following an incident, the safety manager receives a brief phone call “There’s been an accident.” Information is scarce and, in my experience, often wrong or more fairly inadequate. in OHS there will always be an assumption that an injury or death is work-related as that is our patch but people die every day and they can die anywhere, even in your workplace. Is this a workplace incident? Yes. Is it an occupational incident? not necessarily.

It is vital in those first moments of confusion and panic, not to jump to conclusions and rush out to the incident site. If it is your responsibility you will become involved but often, by asking a few simple questions, you are able to avoid this confusion and avoid worsening the situation by “butting in” where you are not needed.

I was reminded of this when reading about a coronial inquest into two suicides that occurred at an Australian shooting range in October 2008. These two incidents occurred at a workplace but not from work-related activities. There may have been some workplace management issues that, in hindsight, relate to supervision or security but these are the type of issues that the Coroner will investigate.

The deaths are reportable to the OHS regulators as they occurred on a workplace but it is unlikely that the regulator will put a lot of resources into the investigation given the Police and Coroner are investigating.

Social change through worker dignity

The need for food parcels for those on workers’ compensation seems to continue in South Australia according to a 3 July 2010 report in Adelaide Advertiser. SafetyAtWorkBlog mentioned the service being offered by Rosemary Mackenzie-Ferguson and others in March 2010.

There are many areas of society that are supported by privately provided social services and this situation is likely to persist but just as soup kitchens illustrate a problem of poverty, so the food service mentioned above indicates a problem with workers’ compensation.

As each Australian state reviews its workers’ compensation laws ahead of a national harmonisation, it seems absurd to focus on the laws but not on the social impacts of those laws. It is common to refer to a “whole-of-government” approach to issues but “whole-of-society” seems to be a slower concept to embrace.

Much is being made in Australia’s OHS harmonisation process of the need to look at the enforcement policies that support new legislation. There is also a (flawed) reliance on Courts to provide clarity to the legislation rather than producing clear laws in the first place. But rarely does government look beyond the law, the Courts, or the enforcement policies to assess the potentially negative social impacts of the OHS and workers’ compensation laws. Continue reading “Social change through worker dignity”

BBC podcast on UK’s OHS review

The BBC’s radio program, Politics UK, for 18 June 2010 includes an uncredited discussion on the OHS review announced by Prime Minister Cameron recently. The discussion occurs at the 20 minute mark of the podcast which is available to download for a short time.

Much of the content seems to reflect the thoughts and comments of The Telegraph article by Philip Johnston but at least the BBC reporter acknowledges that the issue is not really health and safety but the “fear of litigation”.

There is an interesting reference to the “goldplating” of European Union directions and the issue of food safety and cheese is mentioned. The impression given is that the more significant and, perhaps, the more difficult challenge for Lord Young is not OHS but the “compensation culture”. If this is the case, OHS may come off the worse of the two as it may be given a secondary priority.

Kevin Jones

Suicide advice shows reactive thinking

Workplace suicides are in the news at the moment due to Foxconn and, to a lesser extent, France Telecome. There is enough media attention for companies to start to evaluate their own risk exposures.

Through LinkedIn, Tom Boudreau of R&R Insurance Services, issued the following advice under the title “Do Employers Have a Duty to Prevent Workplace Suicides?”:

“A tech company in China has recently been plagued with a rash of worker suicides (and attempted suicides). Nine workers (all of them young) died and two others suffered serious injuries. These workers have not only killed or tried to kill themselves, they’ve done so in the workplace itself. …..

Some labor groups have blamed the company for the suicides, claiming it runs military-style factories and abuses workers. Regardless of the cause, these tragic deaths do raise an interesting question: what duty do employers have—if any—to prevent workplace suicides? Continue reading “Suicide advice shows reactive thinking”

Harmonisation strategy will fail and legal costs for OHS will increase

The Australian Government’s plans to harmonise the country’s OHS legislation will fail. In the Australian newspaper on 6 May 2010 the president of the Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Licensees Association, Dean Stone, said

“Harmonisation was aimed at having the same law in force across the country but it is simply not going to be able to do that… Each of the companies moving back to the harmonised schemes will need more staff merely to comply with the different approaches.” Continue reading “Harmonisation strategy will fail and legal costs for OHS will increase”

Category: insurance

IOSH responds to OHS misperceptions

Like this:

The potential of Safety Impact Assessments

Like this:

Death at work differs from work-related death

Like this:

Social change through worker dignity

Like this:

BBC podcast on UK’s OHS review

Like this:

Suicide advice shows reactive thinking

Like this:

Harmonisation strategy will fail and legal costs for OHS will increase

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: