Occupational health and safety (OHS) laws establish duties on employers (and employees) to provide safe and healthy workplaces. These duties reflect the social morals of the time, but the morality of employers is rarely challenged.
Below is a selection of OHS-related questions that all employers should be asked and able to answer. How would you or your employer respond?
On August 29, 2019, Scott Jordan returned to his Ballarat home from work. He noticed his wife’s car was not parked in its usual location. Scott walked through to the shed looking for Karla Jordan and found her dead by suicide with a notebook on the floor nearby. The Victorian Coroner’s Prevention Unit “considered Ms Jordan’s workplace environment was the primary stressor in the lead up to her acute mental health decline and suicide”. The Coroner’s findings provide an important case study for examining psychosocial hazards in the workplace.
The latest government in New Zealand has some wild ideas and policies. Surprisingly, some involve reforming occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. Reform is usually positive as it progresses laws and fixes errors, oversights, or shortcomings, but this NZ activity is different. To start, it is necessary to look at the policies and some of the media statements from the current Prime Minister and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety.
The Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI) has produced a useful analysis on hybrid and flexible work practices. However, as with most of the media coverage and commentary on workplace flexibility and working from home, the discussion of the psychological health benefits and risks is rudimentary and seems to ignore renewed employer duties under the occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.
Workplace psychological health has been dominated by wellness advocates for several decades. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is seen by many as an interloper with “new” regulations that impose rules, expectations, notifications, and records on a corporate wellness sector that has been hugely influential on employers’ perspectives of mental health at work. This interjection by OHS “upstarts” does not stand up to examination. Social determinants of health have included work factors for many years. Richard G Wilkinson wrote about the psychosocial causes of illness in 1997, providing a helpful perspective applicable today.
Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) has improved over the decades. Yet, preventable injuries and fatalities persist—over 180 quad bike deaths since 2011, for example, with rollovers leading the charge. We have regulations, campaigns, and a national body in Safe Work Australia, but something’s still missing. Why aren’t workplace redesign efforts—like fitting rollbars on quads or rethinking production systems—more widespread? The answer might lie in a hidden barrier: the WHS profession’s shaky grasp of financial literacy, compounded by the stranglehold of financial underwriting models and capital market expectations. Maybe it’s time we admit that the safety game isn’t just about risk assessments—it’s about money, and we’re not playing it well enough.
This newspaper article on the current status of Working from Home (paywalled) was satisfying on at least two levels: it was a sensible report on most of the benefits of this type of work arrangement and showed the limitations of newspaper publishing.
