Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog suggested the need for a new approach to OHS advertising. Around the same time the Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU) launched the latest stage of its lobbying campaign against one of Australia’s largest mining companies, and a longtime target for unions, BHP BIlliton. This time the CFMEU connects the Pike River mining disaster with the safety performance of BHP Billiton; in some ways, an unfair connection.
Category: politics
Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover
In December 2011 the Victorian Liberal Government announced the removal of almost $A500 million from WorkCover funds to be placed in general revenue over the next four years. Some unions were outraged and began a protest petition. Labor politicians were similarly outraged.
The removal of the funds sounds odd as it is understood that these funds are originally generated through the workers compensation insurance premiums required to be paid by most Victorian businesses. The funds are then invested to provide a healthy return with the intention that the pool of WorkCover funds is used to support the OHS functions of WorkSafe and its inspectorate and to provide funds to assist in the rehabilitation of injured workers. Logically, the more funds available, the better the rehabilitation services and the better the prospect of people returning to work.
In this context, how come such a large amount can be removed without affecting the level of inspectorate and rehabilitation services? Does the current success of Australia’s economy really justify this move, even though a large part of that economic health is from States other than Victoria? Continue reading “Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover”
The productivity debate in Australia misses the opportunities presented by wellbeing
Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil
WorkSafe Victoria’s Executive Director – Health and Safety, Ian Forsyth mentioned one of the necessary economic choices faced by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) when speaking at a breakfast seminar in early February 2012. He said that HSE is
“…under the pump politically [and] I think they’re either just, or about to, press the button on inspectors charging 133 pounds per hour for their workplace visits……If they find an issue they will be charging the employer 133 quid an hour and they hope to make 10 million pounds out of that”
The concept of fee for intervention (FFI) was new to most in the seminar audience and it needed more explanation and context although the seminar imposed tight time constraints. Given the economic status of the United Kingdom such cost recovery methods are logical, if unpalatable. Continue reading “Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil”
Executive Director says WorkSafe has been reactive on workplace mental health
Ian Forsyth, Health and Safety Executive Director, for WorkSafe Victoria spoke at a breakfast seminar on 7 February 2012. As a report on what WorkSafe has been doing and what they plan to do in 2012, it was reasonable but there were several issues that raised eyebrows or confused some in the audience.
Workplace Bullying
Ian Forsyth spent some time speaking about the importance of workplace bullying, repeatedly stressing that most calls to WorkSafe about bullying do not fit the definition that would allow WorkSafe to act. No mention was made of the divergent views on workplace bullying coming through the public comment phase of the draft national code on workplace bullying over the last few months.
Several times Forsyth stressed that there were other avenues for action or appeal on matters that do not fit the WorkSafe definition, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman and other authorities. This is the reality but the comments provide no real solution to handling the thousands of calls WorkSafe receives on workplace bullying each year. Continue reading “Executive Director says WorkSafe has been reactive on workplace mental health”
What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?

The High Risk OHS Summit 2012 (why it’s high risk, no one seems to know) started with a bang with a detailed presentation from Dame Carol Black, a major instigator of work health reforms in the United Kingdom. Dame Black was able to provide several case studies and some data that provided a fresh perspective on what work and health and safety means to the British workers. For instance, she stated that of those employed in the UK, 26% are working with a health condition or disability. Black also said that 2.4% are off sick at any one time
Black also adds the personal to her presentations and admitted that she had not been aware of what makes “a good job” until beginning her review over five years ago. It is a terrific question to ask one’s self and colleagues. What makes a good job?
David Gregory of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also spoke at the conference and, as usually, was very cautious in what he said and how he said it. Continue reading “What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?”
The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled
Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is mentioned regularly in the SafetyAtWorkBlog, mostly because Tooma is one of the few who consider workplace safety in the broader social context. In The Australian newspaper on 10 February 2012 Tooma wrote that new work health and safety laws being introduced in Australia present
“…a march … into the traditional heartland of the public safety, product safety and professional liability territory, and it brings with it a criminalisation of what was once an exclusively civil liability domain. The new laws did not invent this trend, they just perfected it.”
Right-wing commentators would jump on this and declare “nanny state” but it is vitally important to note that this trend of “protectionism”, or the “compensation culture” as described in the United Kingdom, did not originate in occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. The OHS profession, business operators and workers will need to learn to accommodate and manage this social trend that has been imposed.
Tooma writes that ”
“…we have not had a proper debate about the incursion of the laws into nontraditional areas and its impact on the resources of firms, regulators and ultimately work safety standards.”
The debate may already be over. Continue reading “The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled”