The issue of working in heat has resurfaced in some Australian media this February, again driven by trade unions. The union approach continues to show negotiating flaws, deflections, and at least one inaccuracy.
Already a member? Log in here
Category: law
“Whom Do Soft Skills Really Serve?”
Every summer in Australia, it seems we are in crisis. Somewhere there is a bushfire, and somewhere else there are cyclones and floods. Somewhere, there are places that experience these two extremes almost at the same time. In all these circumstances, Australians expect strong, effective and compassionate leaders. These expectations affect how corporate executives behave and employ their “soft skills”.
Already a member? Log in here
When Work Kills and No One Counts the Dead
An open letter about workplace suicides was published to support World Mental Health Day in 2024. The research work of some of the signatories has continued and appeared in a 2026 editorial in Volume 46 of “Crisis – The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention“, calling for action.
[This article, unavoidably, discusses suicide]
Already a member? Log in here
Has Having Safe and Healthy Work as a Human Right Improved OHS in Australia?
When the International Labour Organisation declared safe and healthy work a fundamental human right in 2022, Australia quietly joined a global shift that reframed workplace safety from a technical discipline to a matter of human dignity. It didn’t make headlines. It didn’t trigger a legislative overhaul. But it did change the ground rules.
The question is whether this shift has improved worker health and safety in Australia—or whether it risks becoming another layer of symbolic language sitting comfortably above the realities of work.
Already a member? Log in here
Agriculture Has the Injuries of a Regulated Industry, But Not the Regulation
Over the past few months, I have increasingly encountered the term “regulated industries” in the context of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. In OHS in Australia, these industries seem predominantly to include:
- Construction
- Mining and
- Major Hazards.
I can identify no reason why farming should not also be a “regulated industry”.
Already a member? Log in here
Inside the Psychosocial Safety Challenge: A Conversation with Ian Neil SC
“[Psychosocial hazards] is not coming, it’s arrived, and prosecutions will happen unless [employers] take serious steps to address the issue.”
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Ian Neil SC on some occupational health and safety (OHS) matters related to psychosocial health.
Already a member? Log in here
Why Corporations Reject the Models That Would Prevent Harm
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
Already a member? Log in here