Rumours of a TV report on the increasing hazards of silicosis have floated around for a week or so. On October 10 2018, the show appeared on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s 7.30 program. But the story is much bigger than the ten minutes or so on that program.
The focus is understandably on silica but perhaps that is too specific. Maybe the issue of dust, in general, needs more attention.
However,
At the end of September 2018 the Australian Psychological Society held its 2018 Congress. As conferences do, various media statements are released to generate interest in the speakers. One caught the attention of this blog. It was released on September 25 2018, and was called:
“Resilience isn’t enough to combat the effects of burnout, world renowned psychology expert says”
This sounded like it may look closely at the prevention of harm and SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to interview that world-renowned psychology expert,
Many have been claiming that the era of neoliberal economics and the associated politics is over or, at least, coughing up blood. However, occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely discussed in terms of the neoliberal impacts, and vice versa, yet many of the business frustrations with red tape, regulatory enforcement strategies, reporting mechanisms and requirements and others have changed how OHS has been managed and interpreted.
One of the most readable analyses of neoliberalism in Australia comes from
The investigation of work-related incidents needs to be considered from a broad multidisciplinary perspective. But occupational health and safety (OHS) itself, applies a much narrower and, some may say, insular perspective. It hasn’t “played well with others”. At the recent Comcare conference in Melbourne, Australia, writer Tim Dunlop (pictured right) challenged this type of perception. He said:
“My point is that it is hard to break out of certain habits of thinking. Governments pay lip service to the idea that technology will change everything, but then they start talking about jobs and growth as if we were still living in the sixties, where the economy was based on manufacturing, where manufacturing was carried out of factories, employing millions of workers, where the workers were men and where the women stayed at home and looked after the kids. Those days are gone, and in the future they will be ever more gone. But the norms of that era I think still informing how we think about the future of work.”
OHS, and some of the safety regulators, may acknowledge the changing future of work
“A new strategy to produce low-cost sensors that allow ultrasensitive detection of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) by the naked-eye is described in Nature Communications this week. The sensors, which are paper-based and wearable, could enable users to manage the impact of UVR on their daily lives.”
The workplace relevance of such a device should be obvious – far more obvious than the wording of the
Inaccurate or insufficient data about occupational health and safety (OHS) plagues the decision-making of governments and business, and OHS professionals. Technology has provided some hope on better datasets but only for the analysis of data, not necessarily the quality of that data. Workplace incidents and issues continue to be under-reported, especially non-traumatic incidents. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) offers a framework for better reporting of OHS issues and incidents which also improves the credibility of companies, helping to regain the trust of the community.
Recently, GRI released its latest
If you ask a lawyer for advice about any issue related to occupational health and safety (OHS) their first piece of advice is likely to be “write a policy”. There are good legal reasons for advocating a policy, but policies can also create major problems. Policies are both a reflection of a workplace and the base on which improvements can be created.
Search for OHS policy guidance from the Victorian Government and it takes you to a page that describes an OHS policy as
“Laws, regulations and compliance codes which set out the responsibilities of employers and workers to ensure that safety is maintained at work.”
NO it’s not. The page also directs you to a WorkSafe page about insurance!
WorkSafe Tasmania
