Recently, I bemoaned the lack of evidence on the occupational health and safety (OHS) benefits of a four-day work week. A reader pointed me to the research of sociologist Wen Fan. The most accessible way to her research is through an episode of the “Psych Health and Safety Podcast” from September 2025.
What does occupational health and safety (OHS) have to do with Industrial Relations? It depends on who you ask. I think it is integral, but many, such as the trade union movement, seem to call on OHS only when needed, and then in the shallowest of ways.
Safe Work Australia states that :
“A psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm (e.g. harm someone’s mental health).”
Preventing these hazards is most effective and sustainable through redesigning work, but this approach should not deny that personal decisions can also be hazardous. In the broader social and occupational contexts, it is worth considering workism as a psychosocial hazard.
Australia has held an annual “Go Home on Time Day” for many years, but the amount of unpaid work workers give to their employers and the time their families miss out on remains high. Looking at new data in light of the legislative need for Australian employers to identify and assess psychosocial hazards, there are noticeable changes that employers need to make to comply with their occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations.
The Victorian government’s move to legislate a right to work from home (WFH) at least 2 days per week continues to irritate some Australian executives. So, what is their problem with the proposal of a law that reflects the current practice in most Australian workplaces? Don’t they have other priorities to manage?
The chairwoman of Australia’s Productivity Commission, Danielle Woods, produced an op-ed in an Australian newspaper on 30 October 2025 about working from home. In this contentious workplace matter, Woods referred to evidence several times that the newspaper format does not readily allow for. Below are links to that important evidence and some analysis.
Working from home (WFH) is being sold as a cost-of-living fix and a family-friendly reform—but the Victorian government’s proposed WFH legislation misses a critical point: it’s also an occupational health and safety issue. While politicians tout productivity and convenience, they largely ignore the psychological benefits, consultation obligations, and uneven access that make this policy far more complex than a Monday morning commute.
You had to look hard for mentions of the occupational health and safety (OHS) legitimacy of the proposed law changes in Parliament this month.
