Recently, I read Sean Scalmers’ new book “A Fair Day’s Work“. Last week, Scalmer spoke at a lunchtime lecture. There were two questions that I posed in the online seminar, but neither was answered at the time. Thankfully, he responded to me directly.
A recent ABC podcast progressed the discussion of psychosocial hazards at work with important contributions from Amy Edmondson and Dr Rachael Potter. The debate highlights the persistent divide between occupational health and safety (OHS) and Human Resources (HR) regarding these insidious workplace hazards, underscoring the need to bridge this gap.
I have attended many memorials for deceased workers. Usually, a local or State politician makes a speech about the importance of occupational health and safety (OHS), and how every worker has a right to return home safely and healthily at the end of the working day. The speeches are usually clichéd, even though these words are heartfelt and sometimes sound like they have been written from a template.
So I asked an artificial intelligence program to write a speech for International Workers Memorial Day by a senior Australian politician. Below is the remarkable result.
The Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation states that employers must eliminate hazards as far as is reasonably practicable. If you start your safety journey from this point, you will forever be frustrated in your OHS achievements and disappointed in your job. OHS may be forever linked with laws and regulations, but the safety and health of ourselves, colleagues and others is based on our personal moral code and the values we bring to our actions. OHS satisfaction comes from accepting that OHS laws are only part of our purpose
Earlier this week, the Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR) conducted a seminar called “Using Biopsychosocial Risk Profiling to Inform Claim Triage“. Workers’ compensation claims are not a focus for this blog, but attending events peripheral to one’s own discipline sometimes enlightens. There were a couple of moments when the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach came up in discussion.
I asked an artificial intelligence program to identify Australian instances where politics may have led to institutional changes related to psychosocial hazards. It revealed numerous actions related to government inquiries and activities, but did not address politics as I intended. Clearly, my question needed clarification, but the response remained informative and deserves attention.
This time I asked:
Continue reading “Political Reforms Drive Some Systemic Psychosocial Hazard Changes”“Most Australian discussions of psychosocial hazards appear to focus primarily on causes that can be controlled at work. Is there any activity in the political sphere for institutional changes?”
Prominent in some of Australia’s political and economic debates are issues related to hours of work. This may be associated with the four-day work week, the five-day work week in construction, working from home, or the general debate about productivity, whatever definition you prefer, and there are many.
With the political backdrop of the government’s Economics Roundtable, a very timely new book by Sean Scalmer – “A Fair Day’s Work – The Quest to Win Back Time” was published.
