The 7.30 Report on September 8 2009 broadcast a fairly long story on the current status of the negotiations on Australia’s new OHS laws. They interviewed the major players and took good advantage of the recent union street protests. The video and transcript are available online.
Category: politics
Business drops opposition to Australia’s new OHS laws
A story on the front cover the Australian Financial Review on 8 September 2009 lists the “wins” of the union movement in its negotiations on new national OHS law. But it is the last couple 0f paragraphs on page 8 that are most surprising. The article says
“The coalition dropped its previous opposition to the SafeWork Australia bill, allowing it to pass in its original form, limiting the number of unions and employer representatives on the body to two each and giving Ms Gillard [the Workplace Relations Minister] a veto on the appointment of these representatives.”
This seems to be a considerable backtrack on the strong opposition and media statements coming from employer groups over the last 12 months. One wonders what trade-off the industry associations have managed to obtain.
The changes reported are not very radical for those familiar with the Victorian OHS laws – leave for OHS training and greater protections for union members. But the union movement has (yet) to get a reverse onus of proof or rights to prosecute.
The media release from the IR Minister crows about the Conservatives’ backdown and says little else other than marking the passing of the legislation. Ultimately the biggest benefit of this legislation is clarifying the status of Safe Work Australia.
UPDATE: ACCI media statement
The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry has released a conciliatory media statement making no reference to its previously strident opposition. The only semi-interesting content (other than the fact of the statement itself) is its reiteration of OHS being a shared responsibility and the need for Safe Work Australia to ensure its independence.
“The message that working safely requires everyone to take their responsibilities seriously now has a better chance of becoming a co-ordinated national message, with parallels to the mutual responsibility message that features in road safety awareness and safe driving campaigns.”
Fatigue, impairment and industrial relations
Many of the employees in the health sector in Australia have recently been negotiating new employment conditions. It is rare for the workplace hazards of fatigue and impairment to be given such prominence in industrial relations negotiations.
A major cause of fatigue is the lack of adequate resources for relieving staff. This issue has been identified for doctors, ambulance officers and firefighters over the last 12 months.
Many important OHS issues are identified in a recent ABC Radio interview with Dr David Fraenkel, the Treasurer of Salaried Doctors Queensland (SDQ). Dr Fraenkel mentions the following issues, amongst others:
- Queensland Health‘s duty of care to the public
- Queensland Health’s duty of care to its employees
- “wrong site surgery” due to judgement impaired by fatigue
Dr Fraenkel also shows the institutional pressures on individual doctors to not discuss the implications of fatigue. He mentions that there is a code of conduct that impedes the discussion of issues by health care professionals.
He admits that should a young doctor leave their station to relieve their fatigue they would most likely be “called to account” for their action and their career may be jeopardised for what OHS professionals would admit is an individual taking responsibility for looking after their own safety and health.
Salaried Doctors Queensland has established a website in support of its campaign which includes some factsheets. The print media also picked up on the SDQ media statements.
Wriedt provides context of her depression
Former Tasmanian MP, Paul Wriedt, has provided an Australian Sunday newspaper with a long article that provides the context for her suicide attempt, depression and career implosion. The full article is well worth reading and shows the combination of factors that led to her suicide attempt.
Excessive workload is mentioned several times and, although it is only one of the confluence of factors, the workloads and working hours of politicians remain untreated elements of the health and wellbeing of important social p0licy decision-makers.
If, as many safety advocates profess, safety is led from the top, politicians are doing the safety profession a disservice by not structuring their work environments and schedules to ensure a healthy workplace.
One point is not mentioned in the article. Paula Wriedt is a spokesperson for beyondblue, the most prominent depression-related organisation in Australian. In fact Ms Wriedt is one of the organisation’s recent “ambassadors”.
Beyondblue has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Sunday Herald-Sun article was Ms Wriedt’s own work and that beyondblue was not aware of the article before publication.
The beyondblue spokesperson said that the organisation is expanding its pool of ambassadors which should be of particular interest to those working in the workplace health sector. Ambassadors operate on a volunteer basis and may be eligible for the reimbursement of costs in specific circumstances.
[Hm, voluntary ambassadors lobbying on behalf of a health issue on a voluntary basis. Perhaps the safety profession could offer a similar “outreach program”]
Ms Wriedt was not obliged to mention beyondblue in the article and it is clear that she sees public discussion on depression issues to be one of her own career goals, but it would have been appropriate to mention her relationship, particularly as she is a beyondblue ambassador.
In Australia OHS management is red tape
The Australian newspaper of 1 September 2009 epitomised the ideological problems with OHS in a business management context. Page 5 has two articles next to each other:
“Renewed pledge to cut business regulation” and
“Building chief ‘spat on an abused‘”.
The first article reports on a speech by the Competition Minister, Craig Emerson, where it is reported that the Minister
“has pledged his commitment to removing unnecessary regulation that hampered business”.
The Minister was speaking to a business audience and has been described as less friendly to regulation than his predecessor. OHS compliance is often bundled as an element of unnecessary business paperwork by employer and industry groups however, in this speech, the Minister spoke more of open markets.
The second article focuses on an attack on the head of the much-hated Australian Building & Construction Commission, John Lloyd, but also reports on the national union protest scheduled for 1 September 2009, concerning the weakening of OHS laws through the harmonisation process.
The article reports on a union survey:
“Unions commissioned a poll that showed 78 per cent of those surveyed agreed employers should do more to protect the health and safety of their workers, even if it led to increased costs or red tape.”
That unions would even accept that OHS compliance could be considered red tape is a great concern, and the phrase is taken directly from the ACTU media release.
Union Survey figures
SafetyAtWorkBlog is endeavouring to obtain the original survey results (over 1000 respondents (workers) taken in the last week of August 2009) but for the moment it is worth quoting ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence’s interpretation of the statistics.
“… this poll shows the Australian public don’t want workplace safety rights undermined.”
“The poll shows there is significant support in the Australian community for stronger rights and protections for workers and an ongoing role for unions in checking workplaces where employees are worried they are in danger.
“The poll finds 81 per cent of those surveyed agreed workers should have the right to call in help from a union to check on health and safety issues regardless of their employer’s approval.
“Seven out of ten Australians (69%) believe that injured workers should be able to take their employer to court under workplace health and safety laws.”
Business and government in Australia are harmonising OHS laws to reduce the red tape business compliance costs. Unions believe that OHS red tape and increased business cost is acceptable.
What does this leave the safety professional who says that they can minimise the red tape associated with OHS compliance AND that safety is not a cost but an investment? Out in the cold with the Victorian WorkCover Minister, it is suggested.
Challenges for US labor unions and lessons for all businesses
Doug Henwood releases regular podcasts of his radio broadcasting and occasionally there is content that provides an interesting perspective on occupational health and safety, as does the 3CR program, Stick Together. On August 1 2009 Henwood interviewed journalist, Steve Early, author of “Embedded With Organized Labor”. The podcast is available online. The Early interview clicks in at the 38 minute mark.
(A video interview with Steve Early is also available)
Early talks about how difficult the United States union movement has found it to maintain the enthusiastic momentum from 15 years ago. He says that several industrial relations programs have slowed due to a lack of support from the grass roots or perhaps the exclusion of this sector in the initial planning of the programs.
As with many policy issues in the early period of the Obama government, a lot of interest is being placed on labour relations. The government has begun discussions with labour leaders but these leaders face the challenge of gaining the government’s attention during the miasma of policy changes and President Obama has clearly stated to labour leaders, according to Early, that health care is his primary policy area at the moment. The last month has shown the level of the challenge on health care policy.
Steve Early echoes the thoughts of Tom Bramble, an Australian academic analyst of unions, when he advocates an increased role for the rank-and-file union members. It is in this sector that the passionate values of industrial relations and trade unionism are felt the strongest, often because it has avoided the political baggage that comes with the upper levels of the union movement.
Early reiterates that the best asset for change is an organisation’s membership. He agrees that there is often a class-divide between the rank-and-file members and union management. In many large organisations, senior executives are being encouraged to gain a better understanding of their organisations by jumping across the structure to (re)experience the lot of the membership.
Early says that the union movement in the 1930s resolved this by a major reconstruction of unions. Corporations and conservative organizations are loathe to deconstruct in order to rebuild because, primarily, the executives get too comfortable. Executives who genuinely understand their organisation, particularly those organisations that are member-based, can rebuild and remain true.
Productivity is also the Government’s aim with OHS law reform
A few posts back the productivity priorities of Australian employer groups toward OHS harmonisation were noted, particularly that of the Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
On 25 August 2009, Australia’s Workplace Relations Minister, Julia Gillard, addressed the 15th World Congress International Industrial Relations Association. The Minister mentioned OHS and said:
“So, our new workplace relations system is now up and running. We are close to reaching agreement with State Governments to end the fragmentation of the past and have the entire private sector by the one national workplace relations system.
Additionally, for the first time ever, after a 25-year wait, Australian businesses and workers are close to having a uniform national occupational health and safety laws. A massive step forward in achieving a seamless national economy that Australia needs to release lasting and much-needed productivity improvements.
But the legal changes are the beginning, not the end, of the reform process.
Australians should now move beyond a focus on law changes to a new focus on cultural change in the workplace. We need to build partnerships between management and workers and their unions that operate for the benefit of all.
Change of this sort is slower to take root than rapid structural reform.
It is more dependent on intangibles, including the goodwill and motivation of those who take part. But in the long run it will have an important impact on our economic prospects.
So over the coming months and years we will be looking at ways of embedding change through workplace relations, innovation and leadership practices in workplaces.” [my emphasis]
Minister Gillard talks of OHS law reform in the same productivity terms as the employer groups. This may be down to the audience at the conference and the congress’ theme as well as industrial relations being the main focus of the government’s reform agenda but it is an inclusion that, for fairness, it was worth highlighting.
Rather than taking the OHS paragraph by itself, it is telling to see the section in the speech that includes the only direct mention of OHS law reform. Minister Gillard continues to emphasise the process of establishing harmony across industrial relations as much as in OHS law.
She also is clearly up on the latest business lingo, even though some of the phrases have a cloudy definition –
- “cultural change”
- “intangibles”
- “innovation”
- “leadership”
- “collaboration”
The Minister rightly states that law reform is at the end of one process but often at the start of a far more difficult reform process. There is no guarantee that the new OHS will have a smooth entry and, as with any law, the best test for its suitability is in the Courts, sadly.