“WFH is probably good for productivity” was a headline in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) of May 29 2025. The online version (paywalled) added “if it’s part-time”. The Productivity Commission‘s examination of the COVID-19 pandemic in its “before-and-after” report presents some new perspectives on occupational health and safety (OHS) aspects of working from home.
No one wants to experience another pandemic, yet our governments seem uninterested in preparing for the next inevitable one. Australia was relatively lucky in its death rates, but the COVID-19 pandemic and the government-imposed lockdowns have changed some citizens mentally and philosophically. Vaccines arrived comparatively quickly, an amazing story in itself, reducing the emphasis on quarantine as an essential (engineering) control.
In 2021, Geoff Manuagh and Nicola Twilley wrote about the history and future of quarantine in a book called “Until Proven Safe“. The book is a useful reminder of our responses to global pandemics and the overlap of occupational and public health.
A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.
The concussion risks of sportspeople continue to appear in the media and popular discussions after every suicide, death, or retirement of sportspeople who play contact sports. Recently, Alan Pearce, Professor, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, wrote an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper (paywalled) that touched on some occupational health and safety (OHS) themes that deserve expanding.
[This article discusses suicide]
Andrew Hopkins’ new safety and management book has landed. It is perhaps his most powerful critique of modern safety-related corporate management as he identifies “big picture” socioeconomic and political factors that directly affect executive decisions. By examining the 737 MAX aeroplane crisis of over 340 customer deaths that Boeing could have prevented, Hopkins discusses the hazardous managerial ideologies that have been idolised and are likely to be present in most companies created in the last 40 years.
The book has aviation in the title, but this is far more than a book about aeroplanes.
SafeWorkSA has published fascinating information about preventing “harmful workplace behaviours.” The webpage’s eye-catching part is the Hierarchy of Controls for Managing the Risk of Harmful Workplace Behaviours, but the article is curious.
The audience for information from occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators is supposedly everyone, but it is rarely read by anyone other than OHS advocates. However, any information about psychosocial risks and hazards needs to be written in a tone that attracts the attention of those in businesses who have established ownership of these hazards, primarily the Human Resources (HR) person. SafeWorkSA’s page fails to reach this target.
Business ethics has never been a significant focus of occupational health and safety (OHS) organisations or regulators beyond what the law says. OHS advisers in companies and through consultation constantly address ethical or unethical behaviour, even though this is rarely discussed at the academic level or outside of the possibility of prosecution. Over the last four decades, neoliberal ideology and policies have given OHS only grudging attention, if any at all. Neoliberalism is gaining more attention in the OHS literature as the socioeconomic and political sources of hazards are finally receiving serious attention. However, most OHS people cannot remember a world before neoliberalism. It is important to remember that trust in the “free market’ on which neoliberalism was built, the promises of wealth for all, and reflect on how worker health and safety suffered.
