As I write this, hundreds of workers’ memorial services are taking place around the world. I usually attend the Melbourne, Victoria, event and wish I could have been there today because one speaker, Lana Cormie, transcended the usual politics and platitudes to outline a broader strategy for occupational health and safety (OHS) reform.
Most countries and regions seem to have a sport of cultural significance. Australia has several, but all professional sports are played in workplaces, the players are employees, and the sporting clubs are employers. Most have a supervisory and administrative body. Recently, an Australian Rules Football player, Elijah Hollands, displayed signs of a mental health condition during a match. Some spectators noticed that “something was wrong”; some players noticed this at the time, but Hollands played three-quarters of the game, offering only one direct contribution to play, before he was taken off, to only return later in the last quarter. The ABC and 7News provide a good background to the situation
The questions that remain unanswered are why Holland’s employer did not remove a clearly unwell player earlier, and whether the Carlton Football Club breached its duty of care.
By now, SafetyAtWorkBlog readers are well aware that the ways to prevent psychosocial hazards and manage psychological harm and safety are well established. A brand-new global report from the International Labour Organisation in support of next week’s World Day for Safety and Health at Work provides excellent information on psychosocial hazards, but I wanted to know more. I wanted to know why these hazards exist and thought the ILO report may offer some answers or clues.
The most effective way to prevent psychological harm at work is to redesign work and its systems, especially the workload. What is often overlooked is the need to redesign the workload of and the expectations we have for senior executives. The Australian Financial Review published an article on this issue, drawing on the personal experience of marketing executive, Roni Millard.
I don’t believe that all occupational health and safety (OHS) principles, risk assessment tools, or values are relevant to the non-work culture, but there is sufficient overlap for OHS to offer a framework for hazard identification, incident investigation, and potential risk control options. The current political debate in Australia about “Australian values” and immigration offers an illustration of this overlap; an overlap and debate that is being echoed in the United Kingdom.
Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is always worth listening to, and he recently participated in a webinar titled “When AI Watches Work: Monitoring Workers and Psychosocial Risks!” hosted by the Global Initiative for Industrial Safety. Tooma reinforced warnings about overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in occupational health and safety.
It still surprises me that treating work‑related mental harm as something prevented through job design, rather than as a personal failing, is seen as a revelation. Humans are infinitely variable, if not from genetics, then from our socialisation. Humans may still be considered as little more than interchangeable parts in a production process, but only if one denies their humanity.
[Editor’s Note: This article uses blunt language to describe a reality many workers experience but struggle to name. It does not encourage impulsive resignations or dismiss the importance of organisational duty under OHS law. Rather, it recognises that when employers refuse to address psychosocial hazards, workers may be forced to prioritise their own health. Leaving a job should never be the first control considered—but for some, it becomes the only effective one available.]
