Graham Winter is an Australian psychologist 
who was the chief psychologist for the Australian Olympic team and is now an author and business adviser. In August 2009 he has a book released entitled “The Man Who Cured the Performance Review”.
SafetyAtWorkBlog managed to interview Graham last week about the book, stress and safety leadership. The SafetyAtWorkBlog podcast is available for download.
As part of the Australian government’s program of national OHS harmonisation, Safe Work Australia has released “Proposed revisions to the workplace chemicals regulatory framework“. This has been a long time coming.
This is not yet open for public comment but is a great indication of what Australian workplaces that handle chemicals may be in for. Not being experts in dangerous goods, SafetyAtWorkBlog will let the document speak for itself.
“This National Standard marks a significant change in the approach to the classification and communication of chemical hazards in the workplace. The National Standard adopts the principles of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) published by the United Nations. The adoption of the GHS in the workplace chemicals framework serves two important purposes:
- it represents best practice in the classification of chemicals and the communication of hazards using a standardised approach that will allow harmonisation amongst international trading partners; and
- it allows the promulgation of a streamlined framework for identifying, assessing and controlling chemical hazards in the workplace, where hazards may be related to health or physical effects.
The previous national framework for managing chemical hazards in the workplace was based on a distinction between hazardous substances and dangerous goods. Hazardous substances were associated with human health effects (for example acute toxicity or carcinogenicity) and dangerous goods were predominantly associated with physical effects (for example corrosivity, flammability). In many cases, a single chemical would be classified as both a dangerous goods and a hazardous substance, triggering the need to comply with two distinct regulatory frameworks.
This National Standard provides a consolidated basis for the control of health hazards and physical hazards arising from the presence of chemicals in the workplace. In this framework chemical substances, mixtures and articles can be classified as “hazardous chemicals”― a term that includes both health hazards and physical hazards.”
From a brief look, it is noted that MSDS loses a letter to become SDS, Safety Data Sheets. The principal reference codes and guidelines such as those below are now being reviewed and the public comment period began on 31 July 2009.
Because Australia will follow the guidelines of the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, the issue of environmental impact of work-related chemicals will also become relevant. The proposal says
“A full implementation of the GHS would require the provision of appropriate information on labels and safety data sheets (SDS) where a chemical is classified as an environmental hazard.”
All of this sounds like a big shake-up for many Australian businesses and safety advisers but there is still time for the government and Safe Work Australia to provide enough information to minimise its impact. The release of the proposed revisions prior to public comment is a positive sign.
The Heimlich manoeuvre is an established first aid technique for removing a blockage, commonly from food. First aid courses in Australia do not teach the technique as the evidence for the efficacy of the technique is lacking. The Australian recommendation is to relax the person so that they can cough and to dislodge the blockage through solid thumps on the back.
First aid instructors need to spend time in almost every first aid class to counter the cultural dominance of the Heimlich manoeuvre.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “The Health Report” investigates the evidence for and against the Heimlich manoeuvre with interviews with Dr Henry Heimlich and with one of Dr Heimlich’s critics, his son Peter. Peter describes his father as a celebrity doctor.
A Wikipedia article on choking includes the following quote from a 2005 article in the Cincinatti Magazine:
“According to Roger White MD of the Mayo Clinic and American Heart Association (AHA), “There was never any science here. Heimlich overpowered science all along the way with his slick tactics and intimidation, and everyone, including us at the AHA, caved in.”
The relevance of this podcast is very important for OHS professionals as an indication of the competence and validity of first aid training providers.
The podcast also raises other relevant issues concerning evidence-based decision-making, the manipulation and power of the media, and the credibility of subject-matter experts.
The podcast is a fascinating medical tale, a family saga and, perhaps, a case study for media students, but mostly as a precautionary tale for OHS professionals.
The largest Australian telecommunications company, Telstra, announced the release today of a new service for mobile telephones aimed at the business sector. Below are some excerpts from the media release:
“Telstra launches new smartphone to power workforce productivity
August 3, 2009 – Business professionals have a powerful new productivity tool at their disposal with the launch of the new HTC Snap on the Telstra Next G™ network.
Available from 11 August, the Snap is a Windows Mobile®-powered smartphone that helps users get the most out of every hour by connecting them with email, their office calendar and the mobile internet in real-time….
Telstra Business Executive Director, Cathy Aston, said the HTC snap was the ideal productivity device for busy business people who need to respond to clients and manage their email on the go.”
“The email-ready HTC Snap lets users steal back otherwise lost work time by keeping them connected to email on the commute to work, on the way to the airport or when waiting to attend a meeting.”
“Telstra Product Management Executive Director, Ross Fielding, said this remarkably slim smartphone set a new benchmark for productivity device affordability and would appeal to business people who demand always-on email, as well as consumers who are increasingly interested in messaging capabilities on the go.”
The words emphasised above indicate a dominant thought that business people are obliged to be contactable at all times of the week. Research is beginning to show that this is becoming an unsafe practice, if it is not already (see below). The “steal back otherwise lost work time” is of concern. What time is being referred to going to the toilet, spending time with one’s family, countering fatigue and stress through sleep?
In December 2008, Telstra undertook a survey of small business operators. The survey showed that many would be working over the Christmas break. Telstra Business Group Managing Director, Deena Shiff said
“In 2008, Australian SMEs have been world leaders in the take up of mobile technology based on the Telstra Next G™ network – in fact businesses are now using mobile technology more than fixed line phones and data….
The key is to use technology not to intrude on personal time, but to manage the ongoing needs of the business in a more efficient way that doesn’t keep people away from family.” [my emphasis]
In 2006, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Developmetn (CIPD) undertook research that said
“The phenomenon of “teleworking” has been overexaggerated, is unlikely ever to be a prospect for the majority of workers, and may be overshadowing far more effective means of improving work-life balance…”
The most important feature of modern mobile phones is the OFF button.
Several OHS regulators in Australia, OHS professional associations and trade union have directories for OHS advisers. Most of them are in the traditional OHS areas of guarding, engineering, chemical safety….. Psychosocial issues such as work stress or workplace bullying haven’t featured as much.
The Australian Psychological Society (APS) has a very good searchable directory for its members. The search results provide a brief table of those psychologists for the subject area in your region with a good amount of information on individual listings on the click-through.
A great feature is to locate someone within a radius of one’s town or suburb. The Society has thought about the geography if Australia by including a 200 kilometre radius option.
On a brief search for psychologists who specialise in work stress or workplace bullying, the large Australian capital cities had plenty of listings. Darwin came up empty as did Cairns, Alice Springs and Broom but these are remote locations and there may be psychologists in those areas who could provide assistance on workplace psychosocial issues, just not as specialists.
The “Find a Psychologist” directory is very easy to use and could be used by other member organisations as a template for their own databases. The APS website should be flagged by Australian OHS professionals who need he services of psychologists for workplace psychosocial assistance.
The South Australian Industrial Court made three decisions in late July 2009 that are useful cases to look at in order to promote improved health and safety practices but also, in one particular case, to note the approval and endorsement of the judge in the post-incident actions of the employer.
As the SafeWork SA media notice states
“All received 25 per cent discounts from their fines in recognition of their guilty pleas, cooperation, contrition and remedial action to improve their safety systems.”
“Bluebird Rail Operations Pty Ltd was fined $30,000 over an incident at its Kilburn workshop in March 2007. A worker’s arm was crushed beneath a 1,500 kilogram sidewall, which broke loose when a lifting lug failed as it was being lifted to a rail freight wagon under construction.
The court heard that SafeWork SA’s investigation revealed deficiencies in the equipment used, the work processes and the communication channels.
While the worker suffered permanent and debilitating injuries, his employer provided ongoing support including education and training. The employee returned to work after several months and has been promoted within the organisation.”
This case reports a surprisingly short rehabilitation period for a crushed arm. The words of Magistrate Lieschke should be of considerable note to those OHS professionals who want their clients and companies to go beyond compliance.
“I accept that Bluebird Rail facilitated Mr Sewell’s return to work, in accordance with its legal obligations to provide vocational rehabilitation. I accept that Bluebird Rail has gone beyond its minimum legal obligations and has provided further re-education support to Mr Sewell, sufficient for him to complete a Diploma in Project Management and for him to now be studying an engineering degree at university. The degree course is being funded by Bluebird Rail. That is commendable support. Mr Sewell has been promoted and is now working as an assistant project manager.”
“International Tastes Pty Ltd was fined $20,250 today after an incident in which an employee had his arm caught in the rotating blades of a pasta-making machine at the company’s Glynde premises in January 2007.
The court was told that the employee was taught to operate the machine with the safety guard open, the interlock switch which would have stopped the machine from operating in such cases was not working, and no safety checks or procedures were in place for either the machine or the tasks involved with its use.
The 24 year old victim suffered fractures, lacerations and nerve damage resulting in a number of operations and considerable pain and suffering. He has since returned to work interstate with a related company.”
Safety professionals constantly argue for interlocks that cannot be bypassed. This case shows that the relatively young worker suffered considerably from the incident and has moved interstate to continue with his career.
The judgement raises issues of deep concern to OHS professionals in relation to the level of supervision and induction required for workers and the perennial issue of machine guarding. The judgement reports the circumstances of the incident:
“On 23 January 2007 [Mr B] suffered serious right arm injuries while operating a pasta making machine in accordance with a method he had recently been taught. He had received on the job training only and was not given the benefit of any written work procedures. He had been taught to work in close proximity to unguarded rotating blades.
While using a two litre plastic container to collect pasta mix from the machine the container came into contact with the exposed rotating blades of the adjacent mixing bowl, which in turn dragged his right arm into the blades.”
“Central Glass Pty Ltd was fined $9,375 having been prosecuted over an incident in February 2007 at its Salisbury factory, where it makes aluminium window components.
Two workers were manually lifting a slippery steel die weighing 95 kilograms to place it in a press. In doing so, the die slipped crushing the fingertip of one worker and narrowly missing their feet as it fell to the ground from about waist height.
SafeWork SA told the court there were no safety procedures for the task and the injury could have been averted through the use of mechanical lifting gear, which was later purchased.”
This case can relate to the concept that existed for some time in Australia of a “safe lifting weight”. This concept has been shown to be a myth as it focuses on only one part of the work process and assumes that the particular lift is outside the other lifting actions that a worker may have been performing previously. It also assumes that everyone has a similar lifting capacity.
The judgement of this case provides more detail
“On 16 February 2007 Central Glass Pty Ltd unnecessarily exposed its employee [Mr R] to a risk of serious injury at work.
With the help of another worker [Mr R]was required to manually lift an oily 95kg steel die from ground level and place it in a close fitting slot in a press at about waist height. While doing so the die slipped and crushed one of [Mr R’s]fingers. The die then fell to the ground narrowly missing the feet of [Mr R]and of his colleague. [Mr R] suffered a crush injury to the tip of his left middle finger.
Central Glass had not previously carried out any hazard identification and risk assessment process in relation to changing and fitting dies. It did not have any safe work procedure for this task and did not provide adequate safety control measures such as mechanical lifting assistance.”
The National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation at the Australian National University is one of the few Australian research centres who provide free access to their data. The number is growing but is still way behind institutions overseas.
The latest research report they have released concerns management-based regulations as opposed to prescriptive regulations. Australia and many other countries have moved away from prescriptive OHS rules but this research by Neil Gunningham and Darren Sinclair has some good points on establishing workplace safety cultures by looking at a couple of case studies.
The abstract says
“The paper argues that notwithstanding the heavy emphasis currently being placed on both internal (company driven) and external (government driven) management-based regulation, a commitment at corporate level does not necessarily percolate down to individual facilities where ritualistic responses or resistant sub-cultures may thwart effective change. The findings have important implications for the effectiveness of management based regulation and meta-regulation more broadly.” (my emphasis)
The researchers go on to discuss the spread of shared values and shared meaning, how individuals and small units can thwart the good management intentions by a lack of organisational trust, through a literature review as well as the case studies and empirical data
For anyone who is the least bit interested in establishing a workplace safety culture, the following quote should get them downloading this report.
“Management based regulation does not ignore the challenges of engaging with group behavior. Indeed, its proponents assert that the capacity to achieve cultural change is one of its attributes (Welford 1997). But whether, to what extent, or in what circumstances this is the case remains a matter of conjecture. Certainly changing cultures is no easy matter and it may well be far more difficult for senior management to manipulate than many organizational theorists assume (Morgan 1986:139). Yet without cultural commitment on the part of those who are expected to implement the system, then edicts from regulators or (in the case of internal regulation) from senior management, may be met with creative compliance (McBarnet & Whelan 1999), resistance, “ritualism” (Merton 1968; Braithwaite 2008a:140-56) or various other forms of tokenism.”