Category: workplace

UK to see similar OHS review to Australia’s

England seems set to have the same debate over OHS laws as Australia has been having recently – a debate that focuses on compliance rather than the establishment of a safe workplace.

UK business groups clearly see Lord Young of Graffham as being like-minded.  On 15 June 2010 Adam Marshall,  Director of Policy and External Affairs of the British Chamber of Commerce is reported to have said:

“While it’s absolutely crucial for employers to take steps to ensure people are safe in the workplace, the proliferation of health and safety rules has resulted in more bureaucracy and less common sense… Lord Young should look to reduce the number of health and safety processes and costs businesses have to face”.

Stephen Alambritis of the Federation of Small Businesses said :

“Our members want the Government to think small first so that health and safety laws stick with small employers, so that they can comply”.

Big business want safety to cost less, small business want to comply – same attitudes as in Australia.   Continue reading “UK to see similar OHS review to Australia’s”

Safe Work Australia at Senate Estimates – harmonisation latest

Rex Hoy of Safe Work Australia (SWA) spoke on 1 June 2010 at the Australian Senate Estimates hearing (around page 44) and confirmed progress on the draft OHS regulations and codes of practice.  The draft Hansard reports Hoy saying:

“Just to cover the areas we are working on: there will be model regulations covering administrative arrangements to support the model act, major hazards facilities, licensing of high-risk work, workplace hazardous chemicals, occupational diving, noise, working in confined spaces, performing manual tasks and induction training for construction work.  There may well be more, depending on finishing this process. Continue reading “Safe Work Australia at Senate Estimates – harmonisation latest”

Lord Young = old approach to OHS

Reviews of OHS legislation by governments are usually keenly anticipated as they mostly occur once a system is broken.  But there seems to be considerable trepidation with the plan announced on 14 June 2010, by the Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Cameron has appointed Lord Young to undertake an extensive review of OHS.  According to the Prime minister’s media statement:

“The rise of the compensation culture over the last ten years is a real concern, as is the way health and safety rules are sometimes applied.

We need a sensible new approach that makes clear these laws are intended to protect people, not overwhelm businesses with red tape.”

Lord Young has a lot of work to do in building bridges after his disastrous appearance at the 2010 conference of the Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH) in April 2010.  It’s not quite like putting Lord John Browne in charge of a petrol station but…. Continue reading “Lord Young = old approach to OHS”

Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators

Comcare is often seen as a minor player in OHS regulation in Australia because, although it has national coverage, it limits its OHS and workers’ compensation activities to specific industrial and public service sectors.  Although it is limited, it has a monopoly in those sectors and is powerful.  Its role in Australia’s harmonisation program seems to be just another OHS regulator but it has a unique role and structure.

Recently, Comcare’s CEO, Paul O’Connor, and Deputy CEO, Steve Kibble, addressed the Australian Senate’s Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in the annual Estimates hearings.  Hansard reports Kibble’s comments (around page 32) on the enforcement activity of Comcare:

“Comcare has initiated 16 civil court proceedings in relation to alleged breaches of the OHS Act since 2004…..

Recent prosecutions include a matter in relation to a federal agent of the Australian Federal Police for a breach of his individual duties of care.   Continue reading “Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators”

OHS Canaries and Apathy

Guest author, Yossi Berger writes:

“What’s the point of tellin’ them the same thing over and over when nothin’ changes?  I open my mouth about safety again I could lose me job” he said, “Why would I bother?”[a]

Introduction

Words and names can be used as sneaky accomplices to construct popular or inaccurate narratives.  When such constructions are used as explanations of workers’ behaviour and presumed attitudes they can misdirect occupational health and safety (OHS) programs.  An example is the frequently heard ‘workers’ apathy’ explanation of poor OHS standards.  The important UK 1972 Robens Report on OHS noted:

”….our deliberations over the course of two years have left us in no doubt that the most important single reason for accidents at work is apathy”.[1]

It’s 2009 and some of this in various guises[b] still obscures simple facts at work.

I believe that choosing the banner of ‘apathy’[c] as an explanation of poor OHS standards was and continues to be inaccurate.   Continue reading “OHS Canaries and Apathy”

OHS challenges face the Australian taxi industry

The New South Wales Parliamentary has released the findings of its inquiry into the State’s taxi industry.  Although OHS was not the focus of the inquiry, “working conditions” were included in the terms of reference and the report has made some safety recommendations.  The taxi industry requires an innovative approach to OHS implementation in order to meet future driver and passenger demands.

The Committee has called for

“…an increased emphasis on occupational health and safety, industrial issues and insurance rights to better inform taxi drivers of their entitlements and responsibilities…”
even though the NSW Taxi Council stated that existing training exceeded national training standards.  Perhaps the range of stakeholders consulted by the Council needs reviewing.  Clearly training has been deficient in reality even if it matches national benchmarks.  This  calls into question one’s reliance on national training standards. Continue reading “OHS challenges face the Australian taxi industry”

A safe (social) system of work

For years Australian OHS legislation has focused on establishing a “safe system of work”.  This focus is inclusive and is an understandable approach to safety regulation but it has also generated a fair share of confusion.  If a business does not have a documented safety management system, does it have a system of work?  Yes it does but the lack of documentation makes it very difficult to describe, particularly if there is a performance benchmark such as “compliance”.  Humans like to have a clean line of cause and effect or a linear, causative management process.  So vague concepts like “system of work” can be challenging.

Prescriptive rules used to be the way that safety compliance could be met but that world is long gone.  Its distance can be seen by looking at the Australian Government’s new model Work Health and Safety Act which compounds the vagueness by including “as far as reasonably practicable” wherever possible.  All of this vagueness makes the lot of the business operator more complex and more costly as the business operator seeks clarity from others such as lawyers, OHS consultants, auditors and Standards organizations.  Is it any wonder that safety is seen as an exorbitant cost?  In essence, OHS regulators have outsourced the responsibility, and the cost, to employers. Continue reading “A safe (social) system of work”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd