research – Page 112 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Important research into workplace cyber-bullying

Last week several Australian news sites reported on a new thesis about public servants and cyber-bullying which is discussed in detail below. The reports are based mostly on a media release about the research issued by Queensland University of Technology (QUT). What caught my eye was the statement in the one media report that the researcher, Dr Felicity Lawrence,

“…said traditional workplace bullying already cost the nation about $36 billion a year, “so the cost of cyber bullying on productivity could be profound”.

Not true. In the QUT statement, Lawrence stated

“Traditional workplace bullying costs the national economy up to $36 billion each year, so the cost of cyberbullying on productivity could be profound,…”

“up to” vs “about? This differentiation is important because the lack of clarity creates OHS myths and these myths can misinform policy priorities and public understanding of workplace hazards.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help

Already a member? Log in here

Trade Union Royal Commission shows exploitation of OHS

cover of V1-Introduction In January 2015, this blog said of Australia’s Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption (TURC):

“Workplace safety has not been the focus of this Royal Commission but it is one of its victims”.

The Royal Commission’s final report was released on 30 December 2015, and it is time to look at the mentions of occupational health and safety (OHS), at least in Volume 1, and see how processes, decisions and reporting in the safety sector may change.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help

Already a member? Log in here

Where workplace bullying sits in Australia’s IR review

Australia’s Productivity Commission (PC) has released its final report into the Workplace Relations Framework. Almost all media discussion has been about potential changes to penalty rates but, as mentioned in an earlier blog post, workplace bullying is part of the inquiry’s terms of reference, submissions were sought on this and the final report identifies one view on the current state of play.

The Australian newspaper has summarised the report as rubbish while The Age has described it as a “fair assessment“. These polarised interpretations say more about mainstream media ideologies than they do about the report, but they reflect the dichotomy between unions and business and the Left and the Right, and need to be remembered when reading their articles about occupational health and safety (OHS).

Volume 2 of the PC’s report includes a chapter (19) specifically addressing workplace bullying but the issue crops up throughout Volume 1 to illustrate the Fair Work Commission’s operations, where bullying fits in the workplace relations framework and even as bullying relates to breastfeeding.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help

Already a member? Log in here

Zero Harm is dead, long live ……whatever comes next

Zero Harm was an enormously popular motivational aim for OHS. It originated as a response in some large organisations where safety performance was plateauing and who felt that they had achieved as much as they could in redesigning work and improving physical safety. The plateauing led to frustration and a reassessment of safety practices. The remaining variable was seen to be the worker and so slogans were instigated to increase the care (or mindfulness) of workers.

However, this assessment seems to have taken the traditional, and shallow, approach. One variable is, of course the worker but the assessors failed to see that the organisational structure and operations were, or should be, variable too. In the words of the current Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, this variability, this adaptability, could lead to innovation, economic growth and increased sustainability.

The promotion of the zero harm approach to safety could be seen as a safety dead-end and an indication that organisations were fixed on only seeing the dead-end. Safety thinkers, and there are a few, offered ways out of the dead-end by thinking differently about what we know.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help

Already a member? Log in here

Annual Reports can encourage SafeWash!

Annual Reports are crucial corporate documents that should reflect the financial and organisational health and achievements of a company. Only recently, in Australia, have Annual Reports been assessed for indications of occupational health and safety (OHS) other than fatalities. Some of that analysis of injury data has appeared in an article in the Safety Science journal entitled “Safewash! Risk attenuation and the (Mis)reporting of corporate safety performance to investors” – an article that deserves careful consideration. Continue reading “Annual Reports can encourage SafeWash!”

Left in the abyss – the impact of a workplace death on relatives

In 2013, the University of Sydney established a research project into how workplace deaths affect the families of deceased workers. In its information to participants, it stated:

“We are inviting you to participate in a study investigating the consequences of workplace death for surviving families. It will also consider how well official responses, such as workers’ compensation the provision of information and support, meet families’ needs. The aim is to identify improvements that will help to better manage the consequences of workplace death for surviving families.”

Two years later, the researchers have released some interim data.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help

Already a member? Log in here

Submission on Labour Hire disappoints on OHS

cover of Ai_Group_LabourHireandInsecureWork__November 2015_Final2 The public submission phase for the Victorian Government’s inquiry into labour hire and insecure work closed last week. Public hearings have occurred this week and will continue in February 2016. One industry association, the Australian Industry Group has released its submission. Its discussion of occupational health and safety (OHS) of labour hire workers and suppliers is very disappointing.

Representing Members

The AiGroup says, in its submission that

“The interests of both groups [labour hire companies and users of labour hire], as well as the interests of the broader community, are best protected by ensuring that a competitive market is maintained for the provision of labour hire services, and that impediments to competition are removed.” (page 4)

It could be argued that the competitive market has allowed unscrupulous labour hire suppliers to succeed as they have been offering the cheapest labour. These suppliers have succeeded, mostly, because there is a ready market for opportunities to maximise profit by reducing the legal rights of workers. A competitive market may help fix the problem but it is also a problem that it helped create. Continue reading “Submission on Labour Hire disappoints on OHS”

Category: research

Trade Union Royal Commission shows exploitation of OHS

Like this:

Where workplace bullying sits in Australia’s IR review

Like this:

Zero Harm is dead, long live ……whatever comes next

Like this:

Annual Reports can encourage SafeWash!

Like this:

Left in the abyss – the impact of a workplace death on relatives

Like this:

Submission on Labour Hire disappoints on OHS

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: