research – Page 179 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Latest Australian farm injury statistics

The Victorian Injury Surveillance Unithas released its latest quarterly statistical report, HAZARD. Number 68 provides a fascinating picture of the farm safety in Victoria, Australia. I strongly recommend that you get on the mailing list so that you can understand their statistical sources and limitations, as these are important and there is not enough time to discuss them at SafetyAtWorkBlog.

Farm injury statistics for the period 2004-06 found 41 unintentional farm injury deaths, 1,765 hospital admissions and 7,259 presentations to hospital emergency departments. Years ago I remember (vaguely) a ratio of 17 injuries to every farm death. On my calculations (and remember I am an Arts graduate) the new statistics show a ratio of 43 hospital admissions for every fatality or 177 injuries (ED presentation for every fatality.

The detailed breakdown of agency of injury, age of injured person etc. makes this a fantastic resource for those working in farm safety.

One of the benefits of this type of research is that it allows us to determine the success of safety interventions, usually coordinated by government agencies. (One could argue that this is one reason for the paucity of research on intervention activities) In the VISU report’s discussion it said that

“No studies have reported that farmers’ or farm workers’ attendance at farm safety courses has reduced injury risk on their farms…. [and]… the authors suggest that safety training is better applied by farmers and farm workers if it is delivered in the context of farm skills-based training rather than stand-alone farm safety sessions.”

This confirms the adage that one can know how to do something safely but one has to see it being done, to be convinced it is the right way.

Part of the report’s conclusion is that

“…. the evidence suggests that education alone is insufficient to affect the adoption of safe behaviours and technologies.”

I strongly recommend you download the report and read it carefully. There may be only a small amount of evidence and research in this sector but what there is VISU has identified and analysed.

Media reporting of workplace bullying

As a publisher my mailbox is constantly bombarded by media releases. Some are irrelevant but most relate to safety in some way.

Over the years the amount of attention given to workplace bullying has grown phenomenally. In my opinion the attention it garners is way beyond the level it deserves.

That is not to say that those subjected to workplace bullying are not seriously harmed, they are, but the big-picture issue is disproportionate.

This is partly because many people who talk about workplace bullying do not apply the definition of the hazard, and as a result other non-bullying matters get included. A media release I received today, 14 August 2008, illustrates this point.

Workpro has undertaken a survey of

“2,146 employees applying for work through recruitment agencies across Australia, to gain an understanding of the experiences and beliefs about bullying and discrimination among Australian employees today”.

The survey found

“almost one in three (30%) employees claiming they have been bullied at work; one in four (24%) claiming they have been discriminated against, and 44 per cent stating they have witnessed their colleagues experience either of these”.

That data is pretty clear and you can expect the Australian media to run articles on the survey results tomorrow. These surveys usually get a good hit rate.

The media release provides the impression that 30% of employees have been bullied at work. This is not the case. Thirty per cent of employees who are looking to change jobs say they have been bullied at work. This does not represent 30% of the workforce but that is the impression we are given.

Another part of the release is annoying.

“27 per cent of respondents say they feel bullying or discrimination has happened to them within the past two years.”

Bullying and discrimination are very different interactions. Discrimination can be a one-off event, bullying must be a repeated action. To ask about these two disparate items within the one question is inappropriate or, if the results of two questions are combined, it provides a false impression. Did 10% nominate bullying and 17% say discrimination or was it vice versa?

The media release says

“When asked about their peers, almost half (46%) of respondents say they have seen their colleagues bullied or discriminated against within the past two years; 31 per cent of this group say multiple times.”

The point about definition made above applies here but why ask about other people anyway? The multiple times quote muddies the water because it is impossible to be bullied once, a single attack is just that an attack or in OHS parlance, “occupational violence”.

A spokesperson for WorkPro, Tania Evans, says

“It’s quite shocking to hear from employees that this sort of behaviour continues to happen in modern times, but organisations need to realise that bullying and unfair treatment of staff is occurring and could be impacting their own workplace culture or worse still, exposing them to the risk of liability, possible fines and even brand damage.”

Now we have something called “unfair treatment” in the mix. (And I hate “impact” as a verb) The penalties could be liability, fines or brand damage, what about workers compensation claims for stress and bullying? Not only is this a substantial business cost, the cause of the claim may result in the employee never being able to work again or lead a functional life? I place these risks higher than brand damage.

Media releases are not the be-all and end-all of a survey. Press statements are intended to generate contact in order to provide further information and hopefully generate business opportunities. Alarmism is an effective tool and this media release is unhelpful.

You can imagine the articles in tomorrow’s papers where the journalists, if they can be bothered, will have asked the OHS regulators or unions for their response to the statistics, even though it may only be those statistics in the media release that they have seen.

I would have liked this survey to be reported in two parts, bullying and discrimination, to reflect their difference but also to report on the different control mechanisms for the harm that each of these hazards can generate.

But, I forgot, that’s my job.

Kevin Jones

Are turban’s as safe as helmets?

A safety colleague of mine, Daniel Lo, posed an interesting question in a SafetyAtWorkBlog comment

“Are there any scientific studies of the crash impact that a turban could take compared to that of a regulated helmet?”

I would extend that to hard hats, motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets.

Let me pose a scenario that may help focus discussion. If I was wearing a turban and someone hit me on the head with a hammer, would I receive the same level of harm as if this happened whilst I was wearing a hardhat?

Daniel has posed a terrific question and I hope someone can help.

There are a lot of issues related to the wearing of turbans instead of helmets. I think a good brief discussion of the issue of Turbans and helmets can be found at http://www.helmets.org/turbans.htm

Another issue occurred in Canada where the riding of a motorbike with a turban instead of a helmet was discussed in court. The argument was that a turban could unwrap in high winds. The article did not discuss the issues of a turban as a safe replacement for a motorcycle helmet.

Basic information about turbans can be found at the SikhWiki

Another Australian politician attempts suicide

Over the last few days Australian media has been covering the hospitalisation of Tasmanian MP, Paula Wriedt. It has become apparent that Ms Wreidt attempted suicide as a result of a combination of work and family pressures.

Being a politician is a difficult job and, as with any job, pressure can become excessive. This was seen over the last few years in New South Wales with the reported suicide attempt of John Brogden in August 2005 and his retirement due to ill-health, and the resignation of Andrew Tink in March 2006 due to a stress-related illness.

In 2005, Australian politician Andrew Bartlett wrote about John Brogden, the pressures of stress in politics and how the media reports on politicians.

In 2002 a small sample survey into the role of work factors in suicide was undertaken in

Melbourne by the Urban Ministry Network. The authors analysed 109 suicide cases from the coronial database between 1989 and 2000.

The main factors in the suicides were

Work Stress (21%)
Unspecified work problems (19%)
An argument or disagreement with a work colleague or boss (13%)
Fear of retrenchment (12%)

According to the report, a work injury or work-related mental illness had an impact on the person’s suicide in 31% of the cases.

These figures indicate that work-related suicide is an issue of genuine concern and one that should demand further research.

The Victorian State Coroner at the time of the report and a strong advocate for preventive safety, Graeme Johnstone, write in the foreword:

As a society we tend to concentrate on the obvious – in terms of the workplace that means traumatic injuries and deaths. We understand that by identifying factors in traumatic workplace injuries and deaths we will be better able to prevent some of the deaths and reduce the number of injuries. This also may be true in the area of suicide and it is why this study on work factors in suicide has so much potential.

One of the authors of that study, John Bottomley, is looking for research funding for a second analyse of suicides. He can be contacted through the website HERE His research outline is listed at the top of this page.

In 2000 an Australian politician succeeded in killing himself. The ABC spoke to an expert on the treatment of depression.

A book review of the Bottomley study is available HERE

UPDATE

Paula Wriedt has spoken to the press for the first time since being admitted to hospital. She thanks her estranged husband, medical staff and family for their help.

Professor Michael Quinlan, Beaconsfield and Safety Cases

I have spoken elsewhere of the non-release of Professor Michael Quinlan’s OHS report into the Beaconsfield mine. On 4 August 2008, he spoke at the coronial inquest into the death of Larry Knight. According to media reports, Professor Quinlan said about the rockfall that killed Larry Knight:

“I can’t say the event wouldn’t have occurred – I can say that the chances of it occurring would have been reduced… They are steps that should have been taken, in my view.”

He has also been very hot on the validity of risk assessment processes at workplace. As part of Melick report into the disaster, Melick used Quinlan’s report when writing

“As far as can be determined, the risk ranking of ground control was not reassessed or revised in the light of these (earlier rockfall) events…. The evidence indicates that the possibility of further significant seismic events in the mine in 915 and 925 metre levels was foreseeable.”

In December 2007, I interviewed Professor Quinlan about a range of OHS issues including major hazards. In the SafetyAtWork podcast, he said that some mines in Western Australia have begun to apply a safety case regime to safety because of the high-hazard nature of the workplace. At that time he supported such a move.

Quinlan pointed out, though, that safety case regulation is very resource-intensive and, therefore, only relative to large organisations and well-resourced regulators.

It is unlikely that such a combination could have been applied to the mine in Beaconsfield as Quinlan is reported as saying at the inquest that

“Workplace Standards Tasmania was under-resourced and [he] recommended the development of mine-specific safety laws and trade-union mine inspectors.”

Many submissions to the National OHS Law Review have mentioned the relevance of a safety case approach to OHS but only one of the currently available submissions mentions that the safety case approach could be applied to mines.

Stress and job mobility

In The Age newspaper for 31 July 2008, James Adonis wrote the article “Eight signs your workplace is crook”. One of those signs was stressed workers. He quoted a report by Watson Wyatt where employees listed stress as a major reason for leaving a job. Stress did not rank in the employers’ top five reasons for people leaving.

This disconnect illustrates a major misunderstanding about workplace stress by employers and, maybe, employees. The ultimate control measure for workplace stress is to leave a job and I recommend this to colleagues who do not see it as a viable hazard control option.

The challenge is to make sure that the next job is not, or does not become, a similarly stressful job.

The executive summary of the report says

“Forty-eight percent of organizations say that job-related stress — created by long hours and doing more with less — affects business performance. Although only 5 percent are taking strong action to address it…”

The focus on business performance may reflect the perspective of the report writers but as it is only available for purchase for $US49, I would ask for the report (2007/2008 Staying@Work Report: Building an Effective Health & Productivity Framework) at a library.

Inquiry into health impacts of maintaining jet-fighter fuel tanks

Earlier this century the Australian Defence Force established the F-111 Deseal-Reseal Health Care Scheme to compensate workers who may have been affected through exposure to chemicals while cleaning F111 fighter aircraft between 1977 and the late 1990s.

A parliamentary inquiry has been established to further investigate the issue of compensation. In the 29 July 2008 edition of The Australian newspaper details of the work exposures have been restated.

“More than 800 RAAF personnel were forced to do the work on the fuel tanks, removing old sealant using chemicals.

The work was done because of a basic flaw in the design of the aircraft — their fuel tanks did not include a bladder, and the sealant used on rivets to stop leaking had to be replaced at regular intervals.”

Details of the impact of this work on workers and their families have also been restated. Ian Fraser, Queensland president of the F-111 Deseal-Reseal support group has said that

“former workers now suffer temper swings, drug abuse and broken marriages — and some had committed suicide.

A significant number have died from cancer, which Mr Fraser’s organisation says is directly attributable to them being made to work with the chemicals — particularly one known as SR51.”

Those OHS professionals who have read Professor Andrew Hopkins’ book “Safety, Risk and Culture” should be familiar with the case as Hopkins investigated the issue and devoted a chapter to his book on the F111 Deseal/Reseal process. A review of the Hopkins book is available online as is a useful article by Hopkins on safety culture.

It is worth remembering that exposure to chemicals and inadequate protection is not something from the developing nations or from Western industrial history. These workers faced unacceptable risks within the last twenty years.

Category: research

Latest Australian farm injury statistics

Like this:

Media reporting of workplace bullying

Like this:

Are turban’s as safe as helmets?

Like this:

Another Australian politician attempts suicide

Like this:

Professor Michael Quinlan, Beaconsfield and Safety Cases

Like this:

Stress and job mobility

Like this:

Inquiry into health impacts of maintaining jet-fighter fuel tanks

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: