One of the most important sources of information about occupational health and safety (OHS) is seminars organised by law firms. A great example was a webinar hosted by Herbert Smith Freehills on October 30, 2024, as part of its Safety Leadership Series. It was a general discussion on Australia’s most prominent OHS issues but outlined increasingly significant consequences.
The corporate cultures of Australia’s mining industry have been under substantial scrutiny for over a decade. Sexual harassment, bullying, work-related suicides and more psychosocial hazards have been identified with strategies introduced to address the cultures that contribute to these occupational harms.
On 20 November 2024, Rio Tinto released a progress survey on its cultural change initiatives, which the Australian Financial Review (AFR) described as showing a “backlash” to these reforms. This survey is a significant document for those on similar journeys and for occupational health and safety (OHS) advocates.
This is the second in a possible series of articles based on an artificial intelligence analysis of decades of audio interviews and recordings with occupational health and safety professionals, academics, lawyers and more used for this blog and my other writings. This time, I asked:
What are the most substantial impediments to improving the health and safety of workers?
Several substantial impediments to improving worker health and safety emerge from the conversations:
Recently, the “right to disconnect” gained some prominence in Australia. This right, now legislated, allows employees and workers to choose not to respond to employer communications outside of contracted working hours. This was part of recognising that time away from work allows one to focus on non-work matters like family, socialising, mental relaxation, and more.
According to much mainstream media and the statements and lobbying of various business associations, the sky would fall (a phrase that appears with any proposed change that business groups do not like). A significant change has not happened, and the sky has not fallen. At a recent labour law conference, Fair Work Commission President Adam Hatcher described the publicity as overblown.
To understand one’s profession, one must find out how others see it. You may think your actions are vital to the world’s survival, but if others think you are full of shit, you need to revise your strategy. Occupational health and safety (OHS) has a strong sense of its importance but is often seen by others as a nuisance, even when acknowledging its legitimacy.
The Australian Labour Law Association (ALLA) recently held its national conference in Geelong, Victoria. The conference was a curious beast.
I am not immune to the worries and potential of using Artificial intelligence (AI) tools in my occupational health and safety (OHS) work and writings. As with millions of others, my relationship is a work in progress.
I have long used the transcription software Otter.ai to transcribe short interviews. It remains less accurate than human transcription, but it remains useful. One of its new AI tools is that it can analyse all of the conversations recorded through Otter.ai or uploaded to it for transcribing. I have years of recordings at OHS conferences, seminars, webinars, and interviews, so I asked this question:
“Why does the Human Resources profession struggle with preventing psychological and psychosocial harm?”
This was its response:
Psychosocial hazards are gaining attention online, but the pace of change remains sloth-like. Two recent online events provide good, basic occupational health and safety (OHS) and organisational psychology information and some insight into the slow pace.
