Maddocks law firm has just concluded the second part of their psychological health and safety seminars. Lawyers Catherine Dunlop and Dale McQualter have the advantage of following a seminar on the same topic held by Victoria’s occupational health and safety (OHS) regulator just the other day. The advantage with this seminar is that the lawyers feel comfortable in giving their opinions and advice in contrast to the careful words of the WorkSafe people.
One of my previous employers was highly committed to occupational health and safety (OHS), but always gave the program, the schedule or utilisation a higher priority. Whether that was a justifiable compliance level was of little concern, as long as the auditors recertified the OHS management systems. The company realised their approach to OHS was not working, so it turned its focus on “critical risks”, which were, bluntly, anything that would kill you. But such was the strength of the culture that even this focus on critical risks failed to cut through and give OHS the respect that it legislatively deserves.
Matthew Hallowell‘s latest book, “Energy-Based Safety – A Scientific Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs)“, discusses this focus on critical risks.
Prominent occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyers Dale McQualter and Catherine Dunlop have just concluded the first of two online seminars about Victoria’s new psychological/psychosocial regulations and compliance code. Many employers will have a lot of work to do to comply, but the overall sense was one of reassurance.
[Guest post by Eric Windholz]
Last week I again had the pleasure to contribute to the Headfirst: A Concussion Podcast, this time talking about recent developments concerning the compensation of athletes (and in particular, AFL (Australian Football League) players) suffering concussion. The key takeaway – the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Continue reading “Australian Football Needs Better Workers Compensation”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
Companies are being urged to increase their attention on the human impacts of incidents. This is a much-needed and delayed focus that existed decades ago but went out of fashion. Companies can achieve these changes after a lot of hard work and expense, but very little attention has been given to the institutions and government policies that perpetuate the “individual pathology” of workplace incidents. Some recent sociological research helps us see the immorality behind the status quo.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an extraordinary article that seems to endorse the exploitation of the mental health of workers. (Although the article is paywalled, it is getting a run in some local Australian newspapers) The article reports that companies like Shopify, Solace Health, and Rilla are bluntly marketing roles that involve extreme hours, a relentless pace, and minimal downtime.
One job post literally reads: “Please don’t join unless you’re eager to work 70 hours a week.”
If the job ads for these prominent North American companies were posted in Australia, the unsafe working conditions would likely be deemed illegal.
