Two years ago, I noted that WorkSafe Victoria did not mention employers in an awards night speech. Since then, it seems “employers” has been omitted regularly from various calls for changes in occupational health and safety (OHS); however, WorkSafe may have turned a corner last week.
Last week the Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) National Conference contained some excellent speakers and one or two stinkers. (I will not be reporting on the last speaker of the conference, who spent his first ten minutes “roasting”. i.e. insulting the delegates!) Safe Work Australia’s Marie Boland was an important and informative speaker who nudged the occupational health and safety profession to be more active.
Last week, Australia’s Parliament released an information paper on a “National Interest Analysis” of International Labour Organization Convention No. 187: Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention adopted in Geneva on 15 June 2006. Does this mean anything to the local occupational health and safety (OHS) profession? Yeah, Nah, Maybe.
The need for occupational health and safety (OHS) to adapt to the changing (deteriorating) global climate has long been discussed. This discussion may spike later this month with this year’s World Day of Health and Safety theme, the somewhat fatalistic “Ensuring safety and health at work in a changing climate“. Rather than look closely at the ILO global report on this issue, clearer discussion may be found in the latest edition of HesaMag with its special report on “Workers and the climate challenge” from the European Trade Union Institute.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) decision-making by employers is dominated by reasonably practicable safety and health decisions. OHS advice is similarly dominated, leading to an industry that is cowed by the need for job security and tenure. OHS teaching in tertiary institutions is also influenced, if not dominated, by what is seen as (right-wing) “business realities”.
OHS is a small part of the university curriculum. In some universities, OHS education is missing entirely. The OHS discipline is not seen as important or marketable or an important source of revenue. A new book about universities in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s may help us understand the reasons for this.
Last week, a miner, Kurt Hourigan, died in a rockfall in a gold mine in the rural city of Ballarat. Another was rescued, and over twenty work colleagues were able to access a safety pod and exit the mine later.
Accusations of mismanagement and deficient occupational health and safety (OHS) practices are rife. The media coverage of the disaster and its aftermath reflects the days immediately after the Beaconsfield Mine Disaster in Tasmania in 2006, where the trade union, the Australian Workers Union (AWU), dominated the provision of information. But why is the AWU calling for a prosecution for Industrial Manslaughter? And why now? Isn’t there a stronger OHS message available?
It is unlikely that the book “Troublemaking – Why You Should Organise Your Workplace” will be read by anyone outside its intended audience – trade union members and organisers. However, it should be. Organising people into protests, pressure groups, lobbyists or broader sociopolitical movements is not owned by the trade unions, although they have mastered some of the techniques.
It is possible to dip into this book for information on mobilising workers independently of trade union structures but not ideology. This approach may be particularly useful for occupational health and safety (OHS) practitioners who want to create a movement within a company, industry, or community that argues for improved workplace health and safety and to build a collaborative culture of consultation, dialogue and joint decision-making.
