Leadership – Page 48 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) advocates for workers’ rights and entitlements with occupational safety being one of those entitlements but sometimes the safety message from ACTU is a little narrow.

On 14 March 2012, the ACTU issued a media release responding to the release of important workplace safety data by Safe Work Australia. The release quotes ACTU President Ged Kearney emphasising very important data:

“This report has found that the cost of each workplace incident is around $99,100 and of this workers pay $73,300, the community $20,800 and employers $5100…”

and

“We think we are a clever country but it isn’t so smart to forgo almost 5% of our nation’s GDP on the cost of preventable workplace injury and illness…”

But what does the ACTU propose to address this economic cost of poor safety management? Continue reading “Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy”

Han Solo – Risk Manager

“I have a really bad feeling about this“

In Star Wars, Han Solo and other major characters express their gut feeling about various situations. In traditional risk management parlance, that “gut feeling” would equate to subjectivity, an element of decision-making that needs to be minimised in risk management if not eliminated. This has been sought through various statistical analysis tools, risk nomograms and rational approaches to risk. But all decision-making has an element of the emotional, the subjective, the gut-feeling. This position was emphasised recently in a presentation in an OHS conference by Dr David Brooks who described risk management as an art as well as a science. Continue reading “Han Solo – Risk Manager”

What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?

2012 02 13_0002_edited-1 — Dame Carol Black

The High Risk OHS Summit 2012 (why it’s high risk, no one seems to know) started with a bang with a detailed presentation from Dame Carol Black, a major instigator of work health reforms in the United Kingdom. Dame Black was able to provide several case studies and some data that provided a fresh perspective on what work and health and safety means to the British workers. For instance, she stated that of those employed in the UK, 26% are working with a health condition or disability. Black also said that 2.4% are off sick at any one time

Black also adds the personal to her presentations and admitted that she had not been aware of what makes “a good job” until beginning her review over five years ago. It is a terrific question to ask one’s self and colleagues. What makes a good job?

David Gregory of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also spoke at the conference and, as usually, was very cautious in what he said and how he said it. Continue reading “What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?”

The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled

Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is mentioned regularly in the SafetyAtWorkBlog, mostly because Tooma is one of the few who consider workplace safety in the broader social context. In The Australian newspaper on 10 February 2012 Tooma wrote that new work health and safety laws being introduced in Australia present

“…a march … into the traditional heartland of the public safety, product safety and professional liability territory, and it brings with it a criminalisation of what was once an exclusively civil liability domain. The new laws did not invent this trend, they just perfected it.”

Right-wing commentators would jump on this and declare “nanny state” but it is vitally important to note that this trend of “protectionism”, or the “compensation culture” as described in the United Kingdom, did not originate in occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. The OHS profession, business operators and workers will need to learn to accommodate and manage this social trend that has been imposed.

Tooma writes that ”

“…we have not had a proper debate about the incursion of the laws into nontraditional areas and its impact on the resources of firms, regulators and ultimately work safety standards.”

The debate may already be over. Continue reading “The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled”

OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?

One of the best summaries of the current status of the new Australian Work Health and Safety laws was published in The Australian newspaper on 27 January 2012 (not available without a subscription). Lawyers from Norton Rose, Michael Tooma, Alena Titterton and Melissa Cornell, express doubts that harmonisation of national safety laws is possible. They write:

“At this point in time, it looks unlikely that harmonisation will be achieved at any time during 2012, if it is ever achieved at all.”

The question needs to be asked whether the whole harmonisation process has been waste of time of whether some good has resulted from all the effort. Prior to Christmas 2011, some legal commentators were satisfied that the harmonisation process had “lifted” several States’ OHS laws to a contemporary standard but the aim of harmonisation, indeed the “promise” of harmonisation was so much more.

Australian businesses that operate over multiple jurisdictions are justified in pointing the finger of blame at the ultra-conservative business groups, lobbyists and alarmists for stifling a very promising reform. The administrative process could have been handled much better but each government had signed commitments to reform from which many are now weaseling out of. Regardless of subsequent changes of government, these commitments should have been upheld.

Tooma, Titterton and Cornell summarise by writing:

“For legislative reform that was meant to be about providing clarity to a complex area with differing standards across multiple jurisdictions, after four years of significant effort, it appears we may have been merely gifted more confusion and simply a different set of differences. Continue reading “OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?”

CEO departure has no apparent controversy

Speculation has been rife about the departure of Victorian WorkSafe’s CEO, Greg Tweedly since it was announced on 11 January 2012. Crikey (not available online) has aired questions about Tweedly’s lack of action on workplace bullying which WorkSafe has been accused of not addressing. The Age newspaper has juxtaposed the Liberal Government’s use of $A471 million of WorkCover premiums for consolidated revenue with Tweedly’s departure.

On the workplace bullying issue, Tweedly has said previously that he does not believe that WorkSafe has a toxic work environment. When the accusations were being aired in 2011 it was Tweedly who faced the media, where in the past it would have been more likely for the Executive Director to address these issues. Bullying accusations are highly embarrassing for WorkSafe as they issue the sdvice on preventing bullying at work, however WorkSafe is only one of the many government bodies in Victoria and in other Australian States that have been accused of this hazard. Other instances of workplace bullying reports have resulted in independent inquiries but not so with WorkSafe. Perhaps Tweedly is right and the working environment in WorkSafe is not toxic, or no more toxic than any other government department or authority. Perhaps the critics should be focussing on the problem of bullying in the workplace rather than the workplace, or the executive management, itself. Continue reading “CEO departure has no apparent controversy”

Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign

The Weekly Times newspaper can feel justifiably chuffed that it has played a significant role in changing some of the attitudes on the safe operation of quad bikes.

It’s front page article on 23 November 2011 reports on a considerable backdown by quad bike manufacturers in Australia on the issue of rollover protection structures (ROPS) or crush protection devices (CPDs). (The cartoon is very funny also) Motorcycle manufacturers have been supporting a campaign and website through the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) but even recent media releases (FCAI MOVES TO DE-BUNK ATV ROLL-OVER PROTECTION MYTHS ) have been removed from the FCAI website and the FCAI spokesperson has been “directed by ATV makers not to discuss the issue” according to the Weekly Times. FCAI’s 2010 position paper on quad bike safety continues to be accessible.

New CEO

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that there is industry speculation that the sudden change in policy direction is due to the September 2011 appointment of a new CEO, Ian Chalmers. Continue reading “Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign”

Category: Leadership

Innovative thinking needed if Australia is to save lives and improve the economy

Like this:

Han Solo – Risk Manager

Like this:

What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?

Like this:

The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled

Like this:

OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?

Like this:

CEO departure has no apparent controversy

Like this:

Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign

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: