Business newspapers and websites often report on executives revealing their own burnout and how they have changed their lives as a result. The changes they make indicate their decisions that led to their mental health crises and epiphanies. But executives lead by example, so how many of the employees are emulating the executives’ mistakes? Shouldn’t the executives redesign their companies’ systems of work to prevent anyone else from suffering from burnout?
I have liked James Lovelock ever since I heard about his Gaia Hypothesis in the brilliant English political drama, Edge of Darkness. I am not happy with all of his intellectual positions. I baulk at nuclear power from the unique Australian position of being nuclear-free but still exporting uranium. But as I finish reading the latest biography of him, I am starting to realise what I have learned.
Two prominent experts on psychosocial hazards at work, featuring at the Psych Health and Safety Conference later this week in Sydney, Mary Ann Baynton and I. David Daniels, responded to my question to them (and other speakers) listed in the title above.
Mary Ann Baynton’s response first:
“The two most persistent barriers to employers preventing psychosocial hazards are a misunderstanding of what is required and the belief that it would cost too much in terms of time and effort….”
The Australia Institute is a progressive (Left-leaning) research institute that recently commemorated its 30th anniversary with a book called “What’s the Big Idea?” Contributors are compatible with the Institute’s ideologies, but some chapters overlap with occupational health and safety (OHS).
New information about the need to prevent psychosocial hazards at work keeps coming. Victoria will join the workplace mental health train a little later than planned. It went from engine to caboose in four years. SafeWorkNSW has released guidance on Designing Work to Manage Psychosocial Risks and an enforceable undertaking by a New South Wales mine from a psychosocial incident.
I know the basics of occupational health and safety (OHS), but I struggle to integrate those basics into the changing world of work. As such, I have been reading about work’s socioeconomic, political, and philosophical context and how I can adapt OHS to workers’ needs and employers’ desires. Two books I purchased last week are challenging my understanding of work and OHS. Unsurprisingly, neither of them is about OHS. We often learn more about our own OHS discipline from how others see it.
In the last week of October 2024, which is Australia’s National Safe Work Month, WorkSafe Victoria held two notable webinars: “Addressing and improving health and safety issues in the workplace” and ” Prevent and manage psychosocial hazards in the workplace.” The themes were occupational health and safety (OHS), but the webinars differed greatly in content and presentation.
