Earlier this week, the Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR) conducted a seminar called “Using Biopsychosocial Risk Profiling to Inform Claim Triage“. Workers’ compensation claims are not a focus for this blog, but attending events peripheral to one’s own discipline sometimes enlightens. There were a couple of moments when the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach came up in discussion.
I asked an artificial intelligence program to identify Australian instances where politics may have led to institutional changes related to psychosocial hazards. It revealed numerous actions related to government inquiries and activities, but did not address politics as I intended. Clearly, my question needed clarification, but the response remained informative and deserves attention.
This time I asked:
Continue reading “Political Reforms Drive Some Systemic Psychosocial Hazard Changes”“Most Australian discussions of psychosocial hazards appear to focus primarily on causes that can be controlled at work. Is there any activity in the political sphere for institutional changes?”
Prominent in some of Australia’s political and economic debates are issues related to hours of work. This may be associated with the four-day work week, the five-day work week in construction, working from home, or the general debate about productivity, whatever definition you prefer, and there are many.
With the political backdrop of the government’s Economics Roundtable, a very timely new book by Sean Scalmer – “A Fair Day’s Work – The Quest to Win Back Time” was published.
Companies are being urged to increase their attention on the human impacts of incidents. This is a much-needed and delayed focus that existed decades ago but went out of fashion. Companies can achieve these changes after a lot of hard work and expense, but very little attention has been given to the institutions and government policies that perpetuate the “individual pathology” of workplace incidents. Some recent sociological research helps us see the immorality behind the status quo.
For over twenty years, John Bottomley has been researching the influence of work factors in suicide. His early research is rarely referenced, and although only a small sample was studied, his findings were significant. New research, published recently in the Journal of Industrial Relations, adds an essential perspective as Australia continues to progress (painfully slowly) on the prevention of workplace psychosocial hazards.
Note: this article discusses work-related suicide
Adam Smith was a prominent Scottish 18th-century economist and philosopher, sometimes referred to as the “Father of Economics”. What relevance could he have to occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australia? The modern OHS concern of psychosocial hazards, psychological safety and worker wellbeing should cause us to read Smith’s works on the morality of capitalism. Instead, we should read a new book called “What would Adam Smith make of modern Australia?”, written by Joseph Healy.
Last weekend, at the Victorian branch of the Australian Labour Party conference, delegates heard that the ability to work from home for part of the working week was so important and so good for workers and the economy that working from home should become a formal right. This coincided with a week of frothy outrage in some media outlets about the thoughts and comments of some business executives querying the work-from-home trend.
Neither discussion adequately addresses the working from home phenomenon, failing to identify both the occupational health and safety reasons for working from home and the associated opportunities.
