HSRs are one option for Consultation, not the be-all and end-all

WorkSafe Victoria’s obsession with Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) was displayed at last week’s 2023 WorkSafe Awards night. The HSR of the Year nominations generated rowdiness in the audience, absent from the rest of the evening. The political context for emphasising HSRs in workplaces is understandable; there is always a close (and financial) relationship between trade unions and left-leaning political parties like that currently governing Victoria. HSRs and occupational health and safety (OHS) committees have been part of Victoria’s OHS legislation since 1985.

But only as one element of Consultation – a concept and principle that applies to all Victorian workplaces, not just those with trade union members or HSRs.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

A curious Worksafe awards night of omissions and shadows

If I was asked to describe last week’s awards night conducted by WorkSafe Victoria, it would be curious. This article does not question the legitimacy of the award winners and finalists: all deserve the accolades and the glory. In fact, there perhaps should have been more of them.

The atmosphere of the event was relatively muted. There were no tables of loud finalists from previous years, but the tables associated with the night’s final award, the Health and Safety Representative (HSR) of the Year, were rowdy at the end. The Master of Ceremonies was a last-minute replacement and made little attempt to entertain. Her job was to read the script and announce the winners, and she was good at that, but there was no lively personality as in previous years, no one to warm up the crowd.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Mental confusion

Recently, Safe Work Australia published exciting and important data about mental health at work. The data seems to support the assertion that psychosocial hazards at work are a significant risk, but I remain confused. I asked SWA to help unconfuse me and they have tried.

One of the biggest handicaps that occupational health and safety (OHS) has experienced over decades is translating data and research into terms and concepts that the layperson (of which I claim to be) can understand. OHS communication is improving, but more effort is needed.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Safety Systems of Work receives some clarity

Employers and their representatives have long claimed to not understand their occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations and include OHS in their spurious claims of government “red tape”. These claims have become a business mantra but it is BS. OHS is not separate from running a business, making business decisions, or even designing a business at the earliest concept stages. OHS exists in these processes even if the business owners fail to accept it.

But Australia’s OHS regime does have its blind spots. A major one is the lack of explanation for a “safe system of work“. But SafeWork’s new Designing Work to Manage Psychosocial Risks guidance offers some clarity. Maybe what has been largely ignored in the past has a renewed (psychosocial) relevance.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Where is the OHS debate on zero hours contracts?

Australia is experiencing a period of industrial reforms that is returning some power to workers and, according to some critics, the trade union movement – working hours, same pay for the same job, changing employment status, right to disconnect and more. A curious omission is a discussion of the concept of Zero Hours Contracts. This type of employment is crucial to improving mental health at work as it strengthens a worker’s job control, economy and security.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Work (re)design needs government subsidies to succeed

Last week, SafeWork New South Wales progressed the management of psychosocial hazards at work with the release of its Designing Work to Manage Psychosocial Risks guidance. This document has been a long time coming and offers significant advice on how work and people management needs to change in order to prevent psychosocial hazards. However, its implementation is likely to generate considerable opposition and confusion, or even organisational shock, if it is not able to convince employers of increased profitability and productivity from making the change.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.

Purposeful or lazy discussion of Right-To-Disconnect and Working-From-Home?

There is a curious development in the current discussion in Australia about the newly introduced Right-To-Disconnect (RTD). Many are conflating RTD with Working From Home (WFH) – two separate but slightly overlapping changes to the world of work – which is impeding valid and necessary discussion.

Working From Home largely emerged as a response to the coronavirus pandemic and used flimsy work structures to provide business continuity. The WFH arrangements would have been unlikely to have been so widespread without the federal government’s investment in the National Broadband Network and the commercial growth in mobile phone communication infrastructure. However, that same infrastructure and investment have contributed to the problem that Right-To-Disconnect is intended to address.

Login or subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd