Human Resources (HR) is on a slow journey to fully understand the efforts and strategies for preventing workplace psychosocial hazards. This article from Phoebe Armstrong in HRMonthly is a good example. It will nudge HR readers in the right direction. Still, the article has many curiosities and a reticence to fully accept the legislative occupational health and safety (OHS) approach.
Significant changes in occupational health and safety result from one or more work-related fatalities. To my knowledge, this has not been labelled anyone’s “rule”, but it is a sad truism, and there are examples everywhere.
Episode One of the BBC’s excellent Grenfell podcast series references the phrase “show me the bodies” as having been said by a British bureaucrat requesting more evidence of the risks of external cladding on high-rise apartments. Such a thoughtless request implies that nothing needs to be done until there is evidence of a significant likelihood of death.
However, this article is not about Grenfell Tower (which will be coming soon) but about occupational health and safety (OHS) consultation and its failure.
In a recent LinkedIn discussion Professor Johanna Macneil asked me how the Human Resources (HR) discipline should change to meet the “new” occupational health and safety (OHS) duties about psychosocial hazards. Below is my response:
Prosecution for Industrial Manslaughter in Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) is supposed to deter employers from neglecting the health and safety of their workers, but there is very little evidence of effective deterrence from this type of penalty, or improved safety and healthy working conditions. Industrial manslaughter seems to have more of a marketing and political impact. It allows governments to say they are doing something tough on OHS even though the changes have little deterrence and continue to be difficult to apply to the intended corporate targets.
The Queensland Parliament has provided a recent example of the political weaponisation of Industrial Manslaughter.
There are two common approaches to addressing and preventing psychosocial hazards at work. One is to consider these hazards as originating within and affecting only workers and work processes. This looks at the hazards generated by work that affect work and downplays or dismisses factors from outside work. The other is to acknowledge that work is part of life, that socioeconomic factors affect workers’ mental health, and that job stresses similarly affect workers’ social lives. In both instances, the use of “worker” includes all levels of a management structure. Both approaches need evaluation for effectiveness.
It has taken some time for an Australian to produce an affordable book on managing psychosocial hazards in the workplace. I have reservations about The Science of Happy Employees, self-published by Dr Brenda Jamnik. It is not the book I would write if I ever got off my arse to write one, but it seems to be the first that acknowledges the occupational health and safety (OHS) context of psychosocial hazards.
When wearing a motorcycle helmet and motorscooting to and from the office, I (too?) often think about occupational health and safety (OHS) while, of course, being situationally aware (mostly). It is not quite the same as an isolation tank that turned William Hurt into a caveman and a blob, but the quiet allows contemplation.
Below are some of the questions and thoughts from those sessions. Usually, these percolate for a few weeks into a blog article, but I would appreciate readers’ and subscribers’ thoughts. A prize or reward will be sent to the most engaging subscriber.
