A recent radio forum on working from home reinforced the political motivation behind promoting it as a legal right and also highlighted the knowledge gaps we have about it. Occupational health and safety (OHS) was mentioned in the discussion, but its core significance was again downplayed.
Every company seems to have a Mission Statement, a Values Statement, or something similar that all employees are expected to follow and comply with. Largely, these are aspirational statements, but they are sometimes invoked when/if an employee needs to be disciplined or dismissed. The values are often vague and lend themselves to various interpretations, even though compliance is expected and is usually part of the employment contract.
At the moment, some conservative politicians, such as Angus Taylor, are emphasising the need for citizens and immigrants to commit to and comply with “Australian values”. How he plans to enforce them is unclear, but most of his proposed values have direct impacts on how occupational health and safety (OHS) is likely to be managed.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely addressed in election campaigns, and the Victorian election in November is likely no exception. However, there are OHS issues that need to be discussed and addressed, and there may also be a political advantage.
Safe Work Australia states that :
“A psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm (e.g. harm someone’s mental health).”
Preventing these hazards is most effective and sustainable through redesigning work, but this approach should not deny that personal decisions can also be hazardous. In the broader social and occupational contexts, it is worth considering workism as a psychosocial hazard.
“[Psychosocial hazards] is not coming, it’s arrived, and prosecutions will happen unless [employers] take serious steps to address the issue.”
Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Ian Neil SC on some occupational health and safety (OHS) matters related to psychosocial health.
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
Over coffee with colleagues yesterday, I spoke a lot about the sociological context of work and occupational health and safety. I realised I was echoing many of the points I made in an article from February 2024, so I revisited that article on Limitarianism and produced this short 5-minute summary of the issue.
