Leadership – Page 54 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Suicide challenges the OHS profession

Safety and risk professionals often need to consider the “worst case scenario”. But we hesitate to look at the worst case scenario of workplace mental health – suicide. On 26 August 2011, Lifeline presented a seminar to Victorian public servants that was brilliant, confronting and worrying.

Lifeline campaigns on suicide prevention and it seems to do this through discussion and counselling. It outlines not the “warning signs” but the “help signs” that one needs to look for in our work colleagues. According to Lifeline, possible life changes can include:

“Recent loss (a loved one, a job, an income/livelihood, a relationship, a pet)
Major disappointment (failed exams, missed job promotions)
Change in circumstances (separation/divorce, retirement, redundancy, children leaving home)
Mental disorder or physical illness/injury
Suicide of a family member, friend or a public figure
Financial and/or legal problems.”

Many of these issues can be helped by talking about them but, in OHS-speak, that is an administrative control in the hierarchy of controls. The OHS professionals’ job is to determine if the risks can be mitigated or eliminated and this is where many OHS professionals fail.

It may be unfair to call it a failure, as the professional may simply not have the skills necessary to look beyond the hazard and determine a control measure. In this context, the OHS profession and its members must be engaged in social reform. If any of the workplace hazards are generated by, or exacerbated by, n0n-work related factors, the OHS professional must consider methods to reduce those non-work hazards. Continue reading “Suicide challenges the OHS profession”

Interview with Kevin Jones

In a few weeks time SafetyAtWorkBlog will be reporting on the Safety in Design, Engineering and Construction conference to be held in Melbourne. The conference organisers interviewed me on my thoughts on workplace safety. The interview is available HERE but you may need to provide your contact details.

The odd thing about the interview is that a safety conference organiser chose me for the interview yet I am not a speaker at the conference they are organising. IQPC is the company and the August conference in Melbourne is Safety in Design, Engineering & Construction 2011.

Excerpt:

Construction IQ

“It’s very nice to have you here. Now, as a commentator on safety and OHS, you’d know that there’s a lot of talk surrounding the Harmonisation process. How do you think the legislation will change the OHS landscape, and do you think there are any particular areas that will translate into normal practices across all work sites?”

Kevin Jones

“No, I think it will have a particular impact on national companies, those that operate across jurisdictions, so it will be very important to them because that’s where the cost savings are meant to be coming from by reducing the administrative duplication, but that deals with only about 5% to 10% of companies in Australia. For those companies that operate within just a single state jurisdiction, Harmonisation isn’t going to impact them overly much. There are going to be some changes to the state legislation because the national model legislation has to be implemented at each State level, so individual States will see some changes. But those changes, by and large, are not radical in terms of how safety is managed. It’s certainly a considerable shock for some companies – particularly on issues of union right of entry and prosecutions and those sorts of things – but if you have a look at the management of safety in a work site, I don’t think the Harmonisation process is going to change the way it is controlled and managed.”

In my experience many conferences produce a “teaser”, in audio or video, of the keynote speakers, in particular. This is intended to generate some enthusiasm for the conference in order for people to register but it also introduces speakers with whom the audience may be unfamiliar. As with any advertising it is difficult to quantify the benefits of such strategies but with the phone interview mentioned above, there is little cost other than 10 minutes of time, once the recording process is established, and so perhaps the return on investment is not of great significance.

Kevin Jones

Managers being closer

The following are some of the processes supposedly used in workplaces to control/eliminate hazards: hazard identification, risk assessment and risk management. These should address the implicit questions of: ‘What?’, ‘How bad?’ and ‘What to do?’

The language then turns to words and concepts like ‘OHS culture’, ‘behaviour-based safety’… and all within some over-arching package referred to as an ‘OHS management system’. These are shown in the diagram below.

But that’s one representation, there are many others. Now ask some simple questions: Given that some 80% of workers work in small to medium workplaces, just how much interest will there be from managers in these approaches?

The single most obvious change I’ve seen in OHS in the last 20 years has been the dramatic increase in the amount and volume of talking about it. It’s clearly not the only change, but the most wide-spread and obvious one. Continue reading “Managers being closer”

Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……

The survey results of the inaugural Directors Sentiment Index have been around for several months but recent breakfasts discussing the findings have generated renewed media interest.

The survey provides a useful profile of how directors see their role and lists forecasts of trends but in none of the recent media reports does workplace health and safety receive attention although it is mentioned in the survey results.

The survey, conducted for the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD), lists occupational health and safety (OHS) as one of the components of what is described as Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues (page 64).

(Curiously “Work Health & Safety” continues to be abbreviated to OH&S showing the persistence of OHS).

The chart shows that 54% of respondents believe that the importance of OHS issues will increase a little. This can be interpreted in many ways – directors do not know what they are talking about, the OHS profession has a bloated sense of its own importance, a survey over time may provide a better reflection of perception or that the work of Safe Work Australia on OHS and corporate governance is not gaining traction on the agendas at board meetings. Continue reading “Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……”

France Telecome’s CSR report is telling but sets high expectations

In 2009, France Telecom’s management practices came to global attention as a result of a spate of over 20 suicides that were identified as work-related. On 6 June 2011, France Telecom released its Corporate Responsibility Report that covers the period of the management turmoil touched upon in earlier SafetyAtWorkBlog articles.

The document is an impressive document that sets an enormously high benchmark on a range of corporate and personnel issues but one will find no mention of suicides. The best indication that this was a company in crisis is the level of inquiries, reviews, audits and workplace safety control measures that have been implemented over the last two years. It is also important to remember that the control measures are designed to bring about a cultural and organisational change to this corporation and that this will take a considerable time. The struggle can be best, and most tragically, illustrated by the April 2011 self-immolation of a France Telecom employee in the company carpark in Merignac.

By acknowledging that this report has come from a company in crisis it is possible to identify some useful OHS, human resource and organisational cultural initiatives that may be applied in other large corporations around the world. Continue reading “France Telecome’s CSR report is telling but sets high expectations”

Canada begins developing a National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace

Mental health is attracting a huge amount of attention in western countries but much of this has a public health focus. Workplace mental health is not getting enough attention even though, correctly applied, this collective term could include the occupational hazards of stress, bullying, depression and suicide.

Canada has leapt ahead of most countries by committing to develop a National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace. According to a backgrounder on the initiative, the Standard

“…will be a stand‐alone voluntary standard. It will provide a methodology that will lead to measureable improvements in psychological health and safety for Canadian employees in their workplaces.”

Significantly, the business case for the Standard is expected to result in

enhanced cost effectiveness,
improved risk management,
increased organizational recruitment and retention [and
increased] corporate social responsibility.

This Canadian initiative has considerable merit and may provide the (non-regulatory) glue that is needed to supply a business-friendly management structure for a range of workplace mental health issues that are being combatted in isolation from one another. Workplace depression is fighting for attention against bullying which is battling out of a subset of stress……… Continue reading “Canada begins developing a National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace”

Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister

“IMPROVED SAFETY FOR URANIUM WORKERS” is the headline of a media release from Australia’s Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson. The 9 June 2011 statement concerns the positive initiative of new health monitoring for those workers in the uranium mining and milling industries, but it also betrays a perspective that is dominant in the thinking of national policymakers.

If we accept that a principal aim of occupational health and safety legislation is the prevention of harm*, then the initiative announced does not improve safety for uranium workers. It collates evidence of harm in preparation for compensation.

Minister Ferguson says

“The health and safety of workers is always our first priority. [If ever there was a statement that is a red flag for suspicion, this is it] The new national register strengthens protections for employees over their working life by ensuring that data for monitoring radiation doses will follow them if they move across jobs and across jurisdictions. Wherever they go in Australia, workers will be able to access records that track complete dose histories to ensure their good health into the future. The national dose register is integral to ensuring we have a world class regulatory regime in place for uranium mining in Australia.”

This quote shows the classic leap from a pledge of no (or minimal) harm to the reality – a register of harm. Continue reading “Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister”

Category: Leadership

Suicide challenges the OHS profession

Like this:

Interview with Kevin Jones

Like this:

Managers being closer

Like this:

Directors Sentiment Index mentions OHS but……

Like this:

France Telecome’s CSR report is telling but sets high expectations

Like this:

Canada begins developing a National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace

Like this:

Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister

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: