I am a fan of NPR’s radio program, All Things Considered. Occasionally, it reports on workplace health and safety matters. On July 19, 2024, it reported on the unacceptable number of deaths from trenching activities in the United States. The content was shocking and disappointing (the default setting for many reactions to occupational health and safety (OHS) matters), but the report’s format is an excellent example of journalism.
While watching Maddocks’ recent webinar on the Right-to-Disconnect for its local council clients, I was reminded of a comment from one of Maddocks’ competitors, Steve Bell, of Herbert Smith Freehills in a seminar earlier this year (paraphrased):
“This is less a right to disconnect as a right to refuse to respond”.
The webinar summarised three contexts for the new Right-to-Disconnect laws – Industrial Relations, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and Governance.
Recently, SafeWorkNSW launched a health and safety campaign for those who provide services in people’s homes, essentially Home Care providers. The message is good and simple, but this article is less about the campaign than the risk assessment and checklist forms they promote.
Many checklists expect a Yes/No answer but fail to ask a question. SafeWorkNSW’s Home Safety Risk Assessment is an example of this problem.
Continue reading “Yes, No or N/A?”Recently, Sydney, Australia, experienced the inaugural Psych Health and Safety conference managed by Flourishdx, a prominent Australian consultancy that identifies and helps companies manage psychosocial hazards at work. There were around 400 delegates in person and online. The conference was a gamble for Flourishdx, and it largely paid off, but contrary to some of the overly effusive posts on LinkedIn, it was a curious beast.
There is a cost-of-living crisis in large parts of the world, there is a climate emergency, there are wars and political instability and insecurity everywhere. Why is occupational health and safety (OHS) still considered important? Well, it isn’t really when compared to these global and existential crises, but that is the microcosm in which we operate. However, this does not mean we should withdraw into our safety shells and ignore the world. We can’t; the world intrudes on our microcosm and affects us directly and indirectly.
So, it is useful to understand how pressures external to our work and workplaces affect our choices and the choices of employers.
Many conference delegates spoke highly of international speaker I David Daniels at the recent Psych Health and Safety conference. Daniels has a long occupational health and safety (OHS) career and hosts the United States version of the Psych Health and Safety podcast. His OHS perspectives, including his discussions about race, were significant.
Our experience with a global pandemic has blurred the lines between what is public health and what is occupational health. In that context, it’s worth considering the public health strategies and interventions. There are three levels of interventions: primary, secondary, and tertiary. Recently, on NPR’s All Things Considered, a public health specialist in the United States, Dr. Cedric Dark, discussed public health proposed strategies in relation to gun control in light of a recent report by the US Surgeon General.
