For two decades now the occupational stressors/stress regulatory debate in Australia has limped along with the same arguments, same objections, same type of discussions. The same largely impractical documents mentioning psychological effects, physical effects, ‘good stress’ and what is or isn’t a disease and, of course, finger-wagging advice about risk assessments.
Exactly how has all this benefited workers? So far as I can see across many industries very little indeed. I can actually identify individual workplaces where 20 year old stressors have still not been eliminated nor controlled, others are worse even though managers have come and gone.
There was a period in this debate when the bio-medical models were prominent (The Fluid Phase) with a focus on the ‘stress hormones’ – adrenaline, noradrenaline, cortisol and dopamine. Melatonin and serotonin were also discussed, but not nearly as much. Result? No benefit to workers. There was a period of debate about words (The Semantic Phase): what exactly did ‘stress’ mean? What about ‘strain’? Or ‘eustress’ (euphoric stress)? What about ‘distress’? Or the more insidious ‘good’ or ‘positive stress’ and ‘hardiness’, remember them? Result? No benefit to workers at the job. Then there was forensic interest in ‘which exactly contributes more to occupational stress: life generally, genetics, personality or things at work’ (The Multiplex Phase)?
Changes in organisation, in numbers of workers, in rosters, in workloads (vis a vis process and machinery changes) have resulted in improvements, but these have been rare. The matters of shorter shifts, longer breaks (say, at 3 am), genuine reductions in levels of fatigue and fear of job loss have generally become worse. Continue reading “I felt the job was driving me nuts: Stressors and Stress”
Through