SafetyAtWorkBlog has repeatedly called for the release of the report into the Beaconsfield mine disaster that was undertaken by Greg Melick, QC. The Tasmanian Government has today made the report and appendices available online.
The OHS-specific reports by Professor Michael Quinlan have also been released.
This week workplace safety on a building site received a much needed dose of humour. The Australian show “ThankGod, You’re Here” had a comedian enter a pretend building site and have to face questions from an OHS inspector as if he was the owner of the site.
The sketch has added impact because of its timing. It is hard to imagine this occurring ten years ago in a society and industry where OHS compliance was less valued, when hardhats were considered optional and when brightly-coloured vests looked stupid. That the sketch is funny is a measure of how OHS regulation and enforcement has matured and just how successful the OHS regulators have been in changing the society’s attitudes to workplace safety in Australia.
Also, it shows something more illustrative of comedy, more true. In the sketch there are some wonderful stunts done by a small earthmover. Only last year there was outrage, and fines, over some forklift stunts done for real by a young driver in Melbourne. The environment makes the difference between laughter and outrage.
The success of the TV show’s concept is also indicated by the issue of the 12-year-old welder on the building site. The comedian, Merrick Watts, removes the issue of age by insisting the young boy is actually in his fifties and just looks younger.
WorkSafe Victoria, whose logo is worn by the pretend inspectors in the sketch, have said that they did not pay for brand placement and that the show did not belittle the work they do. In fact the show “actually showed that we have a job to do and that there are good reasons for it.”
Safe Work Australia is a fairly new configuration for Australia’s OHS department but it’s awards have been going for some years. On 28 April 2009 the awards were held in Canberra. The timings don’t seem quite right but that is the scheduling of these sorts of things in Australia.
The award winners from the State events are nominated for national awards, usually, conducted six months later. SafetytWorkBlog has written elsewhere about the need to review this system.
The winners this evening were congratulated by the Workplace Relations Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Julie Gillard and were
The obvious peculiarity in the award winners is the absence of winners from Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland, states with large populations and/or large mining sectors.
The Dorsal Boutique Hotel gained considerable kudos in New South Wales’s awards in October 2008 with its bed elevator that reduces the need for housekeepers to bend when making the beds. It is a good example of thinking further into the problem and asking why beds are designed the way they are and why can’t we change it. It has a limited use but considerable appeal to the millions of hotels around the world. More information can be found on the solution at the NSW WorkCover Awards site.
It is always more gratifying to see successful things rather than successful programs as the things are often transferable to many workplaces and are visual solutions to problems, sometimes problems we weren’t aware of. Leadership and management awards are more a recognition that a company has taken safety seriously which has been a legislative requirement on business for decades. There is little innovation to show in these areas. More the award is for the fact that known techniques have been applied in difficult work situations or industry sectors or company configurations.
This is not to say the effort of the award winners is less valuable than tangible solutions but often these changes come from a changed management structure or a traumatic event or new focus from the board. It is easier to understand the significance of these OHS “agents for change” when focusing on an individual achievement. The award for Viki Coad is a great example of the difference one person can make. It is these achievements that should be more widely applauded.
Indeed readers could benefit greatly from looking at the State winners in this individual category for that is where inspiration can be found.
(Kevin was invited to attend the awards event by Safe Work Australia)
Only a few days ago, SafetyAtWorkBlog questioned the usefulness of vision statements. A leaked internal memorandum from the structural mechanical process division of John Holland reported in the Australian media on 27 April 2009 shows just how tenuous such statements can be.
According to an article in the Australian Financial Review (not available online, page 3), the divisional general manager, Brendan Petersen, listed 81 injuries to subcontractors and employees and 51 near-misses in 2008. The memo acknowledges that the situation is “unsatisfactory and unacceptable” and Petersen makes a commitment to “do something about it”.
The trade unions have jumped on this memo as an indication that John Holland is not living up to its principles, although there is a lot of irrelevant and mischievous industrial relations baggage behind any of the current union statements about John Holland’s operations.
Petersen’s memo admits that, as well as his division’s performance being unacceptable
“we also have sites that consistently allow work activities to be undertaken in an uncontrolled or unsafe manner, sites that don’t take employee concerns about unsafe workplace conditions seriously and sites that don’t report near misses so as to learn from them and ensure the situations never re-occur again.”
That such an established company with such an active program of safety management acknowledges these deficiencies is of great concern.
On being asked about the memo, Stephen Sasse, John Holland’s general manager for HR, spoke of optimism and the safety efforts introduced since the 6 April memo however, behind his words is an acknowledgement that the safety culture has not been supported.
“To an extent [the memo] is an exhortation to middle management and supervision, and to an extent it is a warning that we cannot tolerate staff who do not share the John Holland values around safety…”
The John Holland values are listed on their website as
- “Commit to the successful completion of a wide variety of construction, mining, services and engineering projects through our specialist and regional construction businesses
- Commit to continuous improvement in all we do
- Understand our clients’ businesses
- Achieve our vision of “No Harm” through safe and responsible work practices
- Build and maintain open lines of communication with our people’ our partners and our clients
- Provide excellent returns to our stakeholders
- Create an environment where our people are challenged, motivated and satisfied
- Conduct business ethically, honestly and with diligence at all times”
The No Harm value is expanded upon through it’s “Passport to Safety” program.
In the AFR article, it is noted that Comcare currently has four federal court prosecutions occurring against members of the John Holland Group.
It seems trendy to broadcast the values of a company’s safety management system as if they are new and unique to their companies when, in fact, many of the values reflect legislative obligations under OHS law. The trap that many companies are facing is that reality does not match the ideal, and may never do so.
A strong argument can be made to be a quiet achiever on workplace safety – to just get down and get managing – without trumpeting the values that can become an embarrassment when the real world pierces the academic fog of the MBA. Perhaps true safety leadership comes from those who do it on the shop floor rather than than those who advocate it in the boardroom.
Mental health in the workplace is one of those recent manifestations of psychosocial hazards. It continues to evolve and during this process one is never quite sure where the best and most relevant information can be obtained.
Cnfusion for the safety professional can come from new, slightly off-topic, issues that can skew the public perception and understanding of exactly what it is one is trying to manage.
Is it reasonable to take inspiration (if that is the right term) from studies of Iraq War sufferers of post traumatic stress syndrome in providing clues to handling mental health issues at work?
During tertiary risk management courses the debt owed to the armed forces and their planning processes is acknowledged but soldiers operate in a unique culture of accountability, clearly defined duties and a rigid hierarchical structure. In most circumstances only the broadest of concepts could be translated to the real (non-militarised) workplace. In a similar way studies of Scandinavian workforce management are interesting but are highly unlikley to be transferable outside the cultural geography.
A very recent example of this problem of getting excited about innovation and then wondering about its genuine applicability, can be seen in the TV show, Catalyst, (video available online for a short time) broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on 16 April 2009.
The program provides a profile on a computer simulation program that purports to aid the rehabilitation of war veterans by returning them to traumatic events of the war zone. It seems that the theory is the same as “getting back on the horse that threw you”.
In OHS terms, the applicability for firefighters, emergency response personnel etc is obvious but SafetyAtWorkBlog has reservations. The use of video simulations and games by the armed services before, during and after combat is discomforting.
Managers and health care professionals may need to carry some of the responsibility for the cloudiness of mental health and trauma by applying the hyperbole of trauma to relatively benign workplace issues. Many elements of work are being described as traumatic when they are not. They maybe disturbing, disconcerting or even harmful but there is a big difference between being punched in the face by a psych patient and driving over a car of civilians in an armoured vehicle.
In other industry sectors, such hyperbole would be described as spin. It is the responsibility of OHS professionals to cut through the spin and not be distracted by “exciting”, but indirect, innovative solutions. Let’s look for the evidence and operate from what we know works. At least until new evidence appears.
Recently an international business established an intranet discussion forum concerning “employee engagement”. By and large, this is another example of business management twaddle.
Essentially, when one engages with another, there is discussion, a conversation and the sharing of ideas in a cooperative, positive manner. In OHS circles this is called “consultation”. By discussing issues, people learn the basics, they refine their understandings and, often, come to a consensus or a resolution.
“Engagement” is another word for what happens on a daily basis in workplaces everywhere. What is bothersome is when a new management term is generated in order to, primarily, sell a new management book, and in a much lower priority, to provide a new perspective.
In the current edition of Australia’s business magazine, BRW, there is a discussion on engagement, (not available online). Through an OHS perspective, interpret the following quotes about “employee engagement scores):
“About 40 per cent of employees were failing at the most basic level, saying they either didn’t know what was expected of them or didn’t have the tools to do it.”
OHS = consultation, job description, induction, supervision.
“Those in a leadership position now are taking advantage and redoubling their efforts around employee engagement.”
OHS = leadership, safety culture
The article makes a useful distinction that an “engaged employee” does not equal a “happy employee”.
The BRW article does not, however, discuss the possible downsides of engagement. There is a risk that benchmarking of engagement may applied inappropriately and, according to the CIPD:
“Research confirms however that there is a significant gap between levels of engagement found among UK employees and those that would produce optimum performance. HR professionals need to recognise that engagement is a strategic issue that cannot simply be left to manage itself.”
Engagement is another tool for management but just how many tools are needed?
In short, a management system needs to talk with employees, listen to employees, and support employees. Wow, how radical. It can be that simple.
The West Australian government has taken the extraordinary step of talking directly to the senior management of Australian mining corporation BHP Billiton about the recent spate of fatalities at BHP’s worksites. The cynic would say that we now know the number of workplace fatalities that it takes to gain a Minister’s attention however, the fact that this high-level meeting is occurring is a clear indication of the severity of the issue. It may also indicate just how effective a union safety campaign can be. It is just regrettable the campaign is generated from multiple fatalities rather than preventive issues.
According to the Minister, Nick Moore
“Mines inspectors will now issue prohibition notices to BHP under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 – basically a stop work notice – for any breach of work practices or work place conditions that may constitute a hazard to workers.”
Mr Moore went on to say, according to one media article, “…the policy would remain in force until he had seen the report of a Section 45 review currently under way into safety management systems at all of BHP Billiton’s Pilbara iron ore mine sites.”
The article noted that
“The review, requiring independent engineering studies of BHP worksites to be carried out, is expected to be completed by April 30.”
BHP, meanwhile, has given guarantees of the following safety improvements: