Last week’s International Workers’ Memorial Day in Melbourne is stuck in the back of my mind, niggling into my thoughts. I reread the article I wrote at the time and realised that it did not outline what was said by Victorian Trades Hall Council Secretary, Luke Hilakari or the Premier, Jacinta Allan. Below are my takeaways from Hilakari’s speech and a slightly edited transcript of the Premier’s speech.
The Australia Institute is a progressive (Left-leaning) research institute that recently commemorated its 30th anniversary with a book called “What’s the Big Idea?” Contributors are compatible with the Institute’s ideologies, but some chapters overlap with occupational health and safety (OHS).
WorkSafe Vcitoria’s annual awards night for 2024 was held last week. It was an unexceptional night, with around 400 in the audience, most of whom were award finalists and their colleagues. Although unexceptional, it was not dull, as the finalists’ stories were often compelling. However, the event needs a boost. Perhaps not to the flamboyance of earlier this century with over 1000 attendees and dancing into the night, as that would not be a good political look, but it needs something.
What was not notable was the politics of the evening.
For personal reasons, Joe Calafiore, Chief Executive Officer of WorkSafe Victoria, announced his departure today after less than eighteen months. Narelle Beer departed in mid-2024.
Calafiore said in a staff email that:
“This job is 100% or nothing, and at this stage I am unable to commit the full focus that the role requires.”
WorkSafe Victoria Chair Bob Cameron told staff:
Michael Belzer and Michael Quinlan have outlined the economics of occupational health and safety (OHS) in the editorial of the latest edition of The Economic and Labour Relations Review. This contrasts with earlier research about the business case for OHS as it broadens the pool of influences more broadly. They write:
“The economic approaches to OHS in the papers in this issue identify externalities and suggest that incomplete market analysis has created an inappropriate permission to ignore uncompensated costs in labour, product, and service markets; these incomplete markets lead to greater social risk as well as inefficiency. More integrated understandings of OHS are challenging but research performed without them leads to narrow and partial understandings.” (page 483)
The political upheavals in the United States and the changes to corporate ideologies are concerning, primarily because of the potential infection of other nations. Businesses are not as globally connected as much of the media coverage implies. Still, Australian businesses watch the actions of global companies, and Amazon has been prominent in workplace and occupational health and safety (OHS) practices.
Recently, the US Senate Labor Committee released a damning report into Amazon’s high workplace injury rates, which includes important information for similar industries in local jurisdictions.
The human resources (HR) discipline is often criticised for not considering the interests of workers as its primary consideration. This is not a recent phenomenon. To understand the origins of this criticism, looking at some of the research into the discipline from before the wellness industry dominated many of the HR approaches to occupational health and safety (OHS) is helpful.
