Foxconn, a large technology manufacturer in China has a cluster of suicides. This issue is getting more attention than normal in Western media because the company manufactures products for Apple and the Apple iPad went on sale around the world at the same time news about the suicides broke.
The question that must be asked is “is this a Foxconn problem or an Apple problem?” Continue reading “Suicides in China – is this a Foxconn problem or an Apple problem?”
On 4 March 2010, the Work Injured Resource Connection conducted a forum in South Australia. Several politicians who have expressed an interest or have an active interest in workers’ compensation were present.
Part of the forum has been uploaded on Youtube and is included below. The speaker in this video, Robert Brokenshire, represents the Family First party in the South Australian Parliament. Much of this part of his presentation reflects public statements that Brokenshire and others have made in relation to the State’s workers’ compensation system. Continue reading “Workers’ compensation forum online – excerpt”
On 16 February 2010, I was interviewed by Channel 7 television in Melbourne over 20 minutes of footage they had received that showed unacceptable work practices at a domestic site in Cranbourne.
Emails from friends told me that my words and face were used in promotional ads by the TV program. At the time of writing this, I have not seen the ads and I have no idea what words of mine they will use in the program to be broadcast this evening, 17 February 2010. [Video now available online]
Today Tonight has video of two men who are installing fibreglass insulation into a domestic roof space after having made an entry by removing some roof tiles. The men were employed to undertake the work by a company that has registered with the Australian Government for the task. The workers are equipped with face masks, gloves and coveralls. No fall protection was provided. Continue reading “Television exposé of children at risk on roof insulation worksite”
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) has come in for a lot of “stick” over the last few years by seemingly over-reacting to OHS hazards. In many cases, these reports have come from a misinterpretation of OHS rules and guidelines or a misunderstanding of the basic principles of safety. In some cases it is simply a beat-up my England’s tabloid media.
However, this attitude to safety and the creation of a misperception of OHS has annoyed the HSE. Below is a video that the HSE produced, going by the tone of the video, in response to the bad press.
The “Right People” campaign seems familiar to many other campaigns attempted around the world and the introduction depicting silly headlines shows that the HSE is think-skinned.
Much more successful is the HSE’s recent campaign about safety in farming. Continue reading “Getting safety promotion right”
Workplace safety, as is any legislation, is subjected to the political whims and decisions of whichever political party is in power at the time. In Australia, John Howard’s conservative government almost halved the already meagre budget of the National OHS Commission, stopping many of the programs of national OHS uniformity that are now being resurrected by the Labor Government of Kevin Rudd.
On 14 January 2010 an investigative report into the operation of Cal-OSHA by KCET says that there was a marked change in the enforcement policies of Cal-OSHA shortly after the election of Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California. Continue reading “Politics and safety in California”
In November 2009, Peter Sandman delivered the Berreth Lecture at the annual conference of the National Public Health Information Coalition (NPHIC). Significantly Sandman was asked not to present on risk communication but about his experiences in risk communication and how he came to prominence in the field.
The NPHIC has made the 65-minute video of his lecture available on-line. Sandman has the audio available through his website. The speech notes are also available but, as is his wont, Sandman diverges from the “script” frequently.
For decades OHS professionals have known that the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) does not accurately measure the safety performance of an organisation. LTIFR can be manipulated and is responsive to single catastrophic events. The consensus has always been that LTIFR is one indicator of safety improvement but should not be relied upon at that same time as acknowledging there is no real alternative to the LTIFR.
From an Australian Senate inquiry that is currently running and sparked, to some extent, from an ABC current affairs report in September 2009, it seems that the Australian postal service, Australia Post, is doing just that.
One of the attractive managerial elements of LTIFR is that it provides a figure from which incentives and rewards can be provided. This is attractive to both OHS managers and employers because LTIFR provides a tangible benchmark.
Safety incentives and rewards have been contentious for decades but have come to the fore in this inquiry due to this type of accusation from one of the Australian trade unions, the CEPU ( Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union):
Australia Post boasts that Lost Time Injury records are the lowest they’ve ever been. But those results haven’t been achieved by a safer workplace – rather by manipulating the injury management process to force people back to work and deny employees their rights.
Meanwhile, the same managers receive cash bonuses for reducing Lost Time Injuries in their sections.
The CEPU has documented extensive abuse of the injury management process.
Facility Nominated Doctors
Workers are being bullied into attending company-paid Facility Nominated Doctors.
FNDs are instructed to get people eligible for workers compensation straight back to work, before they’ve had to time to recover.
Australia Post has a commercial contract with InjuryNET, a private organisation, which gives Post access to a network of doctors.
InjuryNET guarantees it will reduce Lost Time Injury rates, lost hours and duration until return to pre-injury duties.
Where workers are not eligible for workers compensation, company doctors are instructed to find them unfit for duties, so Australia Post can direct them off work without pay, or sack them.
The CEPU has obtained email evidence that managers use the injury management process to get rid of ‘undesireable’ (sic) employees.
This is the language Australia Post management uses to describe injured workers.
Many of the attachment the CEPU has provided to the Senate Inquiry are not being publicly released because they include details of many cases of alleged mismanagement. The CEPU has posted an example of Australia Post’s approach to injured workers on Youtube.
The Australian Government responded to pressure from unions and elsewhere and established the Senate inquiry with the following terms of reference.
“The practices and procedures of Australia Post over the past three years in relation to the treatment of injured and ill workers, including but not limited to:
- allegations that injured staff have been forced back to work in inappropriate duties before they have recovered from workplace injuries:
- the desirability of salary bonus policies that reward managers based on lost time injury management and the extent to which this policy may impact on return to work recommendations of managers to achieve bonus targets:
- the commercial arrangements that exist between Australia Post and InjuryNet and the quality of the service provided by the organisation:
- allegations of Compensation Delegates using fitness for duty assessments from Facility Nominated doctors to justify refusal of compensation claims and whether the practice is in breach of the Privacy Act 1988 and Comcare policies:
- allegations that Australia Post has no legal authority to demand medical assessments of injured workers when they are clearly workers’ compensation matters:
- the frequency of referrals to InjuryNet Doctors and the policies and circumstances behind the practices:
- the comparison of outcomes arising from circumstances when an injured worker attends a facility nominated doctor, their own doctor and when an employee attends both, the practices in place to manage conflicting medical recommendations in the workplace; and
- any related matters.”
Some submissions to the inquiry have been made publicly available, including a submission by Australia Post. The company responds to each of the allegations included in the terms of reference. A frequent response from Australia Post is that its actions do not breach the law be it privacy legislation, workers’ compensation or its own policies. This defence is common for companies and organisations but it is often contrary to many of the arguments from the workers.
In the video above Brett Griffin describes the treatment from his managers at Australia Post as “wrong”. It may be wrong but is it illegal? This is the question that most Courts and judges face.
However this inquiry ends, the management of its employees seems not to have been to an acceptable level. The safety and HR Management system seems not to have been working properly. The evidence for this is the number of disgruntled employees and ex-workers and the existence of the Senate inquiry.
Clearly Australia Post’s conduct was not “best practice”. In the company’s recently released annual Corporate Responsibility Report it says this under the section for People Management:
“The effective management of our human resources is, therefore, of vital importance to our brand strength, community engagement, service performance and financial returns. Over several decades, we have developed a set of policies and programs that are designed to protect and reward our people – including progressive industrial relations policies; proactive management of occupational health and safety; continuation of our successful injury management, rehabilitation and return-to-work programs; a strong commitment to diversity; structured workplace learning; and effective grievance procedures.”
RTWMatters said in an article on its website (subscriber access only) in late September 2009 this about Australia Post:
“Some of our team have had first-hand experience with Australia Post’s return to work. In the select number of cases they have dealt with the Australia Post system has been found to be frustrating and seemingly lacking in genuine interest in the employee. Perhaps our team has seen only isolated examples, not representative of the general approach – if so our opinion may be swayed by the appropriate data. Our experience is that the Australia Post system focuses on ‘process before people’.”
The “Senate Inquiry into Australia Post’s treatment of injured and ill workers” will undoubtedly provide important lessons that will be relevant globally on safety incentives, LTIFRs, return-to-work practices in a large organisation, rehabilitation provider conduct, and, most importantly, how to manage injured staff. What should not be lost in any inquiry of this type is that the inquiry exists because people have been hurt and, they feel, unfairly treated.
[Kevin Jones is a feature writer for RTWMatters]
All non-confidential submissions can be accessed as they are uploaded at http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/aust_post/submissions.htm