The latest edition of the European Trade Union Institute’s HesaMag features articles on Artificial Intelligence, but the go-to article for me was the magazine’s perspective on Australia’s ban on engineered stone.
We often learn more about ourselves by reading how others see us, so I was keen to read the perspective of sociologist Catherine Cavalin and historian Alfredo Menendez Navarro.
Occupational health and safety has traditionally been considered under the category of industrial, or industrial relations, but largely this is due to the major advocates of OHS being the trade union movement. So OHS seems to fit with workers’ rights under the issues of wages and conditions, but really OHS is a social law.
According to one definition social law is:
“…any law, rule or regulation (including international treaty obligations) applicable in any jurisdiction concerning
– labour,
– social security,
– the regulation of industrial relations (between government, employers and employees),
– the protection of occupational, as well as public, health and safety,
– the regulation of public participation,
– the protection and regulation of ownership of land rights (both formal and traditional), immovable goods and intellectual and cultural property rights,
– the protection and empowerment of indigenous peoples or ethnic groups,
– the protection, restoration and promotion of cultural heritage, and
– all other laws, rules and regulations providing for the protection of employees and citizens.”
OHS meets several elements of this definition.
There is a considerable overlap between organisational psychology, Human Resources and occupational health and safety (OHS), even though each has developed its own culture and language. People are just starting to acknowledge the overlap and trying to increase it.
One example of that overlap was on display in an interview with prominent podcaster Mel Robbins, who admitted that:
“The hardest thing about what I do is that oftentimes the advice and the tools sound dumb or repetitive…”
Self-help books often include a nugget of useful information related to occupational health and safety. Paul Taylor‘s “Death by Confort – How Modern Life is Killing Us and What We Can Do About It” offers a recent example.
Last week, Maddocks law firm conducted an end-of-year summary of its workplace relations issues and a forecast for 2025. Occupational health and safety (OHS) are almost inseparable from industrial relations (IR), so the overlaps between the four or five topics discussed were enlightening and provided a good contrast to the information from other law sources.
[The following article discusses suicide]
In November 2024, Victorian Coroner John Cain said:
“”While our early research suggests that Victoria’s suicide rate has not increased overall, it is troubling that we continue to see no sustained reduction in lives lost.”
Cain has instigated a research program with the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health at the University of Melbourne to provide a better understanding of suicide trends and rates. An understanding supported and queried by an article (paywalled) in The Weekend Australia written by journalist Stephen Corby.
[The following article discusses suicides]
Suicide has been a running thread in this blog for many years, and the occupational health and safety context will continue to be examined. The issue appears in unlikely locations, such as a book translated from French called “The New Spirit of Capitalism”.
The study of suicide is finally overcoming the social stigma to accept that the causes are many, in work and in life, and that mental illness is not always present when people decide to die by suicide. Statistics have helped enormously in this by showing that rates of suicide have not declined, even with millions of government dollars going to mental health organisations.
Here are Luc Boltanski‘s and Eve Chiapello‘s thoughts on those causes and statistics:
