Category: workplace

Latest Australian farm injury statistics

The Victorian Injury Surveillance Unithas released its latest quarterly statistical report, HAZARD.  Number 68 provides a fascinating picture of the farm safety in Victoria, Australia.  I strongly recommend that you get on the mailing list so that you can understand their statistical sources and limitations, as these are important and there is not enough time to discuss them at SafetyAtWorkBlog.HAZARD - Edition 68

Farm injury statistics for the period 2004-06 found 41 unintentional farm injury deaths, 1,765 hospital admissions and 7,259 presentations to hospital emergency departments.  Years ago I remember (vaguely) a ratio of 17 injuries to every farm death.  On my calculations (and remember I am an Arts graduate) the new statistics show a ratio of 43 hospital admissions for every fatality or 177 injuries (ED presentation for every fatality.

The detailed breakdown of agency of injury, age of injured person etc. makes this a fantastic resource for those working in farm safety.

One of the benefits of this type of research is that it allows us to determine the success of safety interventions, usually coordinated by government agencies.  (One could argue that this is one reason for the paucity of research on intervention activities) In the VISU report’s discussion it said that

“No studies have reported that farmers’ or farm workers’ attendance at farm safety courses has reduced injury risk on their farms…. [and]… the authors suggest that safety training is better applied by farmers and farm workers if it is delivered in the context of farm skills-based training rather than stand-alone farm safety sessions.”

This confirms the adage that one can know how to do something safely but one has to see it being done, to be convinced it is the right way.

Part of the report’s conclusion is that

“…. the evidence suggests that education alone is insufficient to affect the adoption of safe behaviours and technologies.”

I strongly recommend you download the report and read it carefully.  There may be only a small amount of evidence and research in this sector but what there is VISU has identified and analysed.

New Work Safety Ads from Australia

Twenty years ago, I was at a FutureSafe conference in Sydney, Australia, where Eileen McMahon of WorkSafe Victoria showed a series of graphic ads.  The audience were impressed and roundly supported the use of such ads in their own States.

At the time confronting ads were de rigueur as road safety campaigns had been using the same technique for a while.  Ads from both government authorities won critical acclaim and many awards.

Confronting workplace safety ads recently ran on Canadian television to a mixed reception.  WorkSafe Victoria has clearly adapted these ads and their concepts to the Australian circumstance in its campaign that was launched on Australian television on 5 October 2008.

 

WorkSafe Young Workers Campaign
WorkSafe Young Workers Campaign

The Australian ads have emphasised the  lack of information and induction provided to young workers.  Rather than having the incident victim talk to the camera, WorkSafe emphasises the confused thought processes of a young person in a bakery being unsure of how to operate a machine safely, a young man experiments with a nailgun, and a young person scalded in a commercial kitchen.

In The Sunday Age, WorkSafe CEO, John Merritt, said that the graphic content was to gain the attention of young workers:

“It’s confronting, it’s not pleasant, but young workers have challenged us to confront them with the reality of what happens…”

“The guts of this campaign is to say to young workers: for goodness sake, if you’re not sure about something, speak up.”

“”It was clear from the research that nothing else would have impact.”

Media reports make no acknowledgement of the Canadian campaign which seems a little odd given the similarities of the kitchen-based ad, in particular.

The challenge of this type of ad is to run it for just long enough to make an impact but not so long that viewers get “graphic fatigue” – particularly important for appealing to young workers.  This is also a lesson that should have been learnt from the original WorkSafe ads a couple of decades ago.  The combination of both a workplace safety campaign and road safety campaign using the same techniques limited the effectiveness of both.

There is no doubt about the validity of the safety risks in WorkSafe’s target market but it is vital that these ads be balanced with the more gentle and parent-friendly “homecoming” ads and the workplace inspector ads aimed at business operators.  All three should be broadcast over the same period in order to provide the broadest context and the one that reflects the reality.

 

WorkSafe Young Workers Campaign
WorkSafe Young Workers Campaign

Clearly, the WorkSafe ad campaign is intended to maximise the retirn on the advertising budget by generating media debate.  This was vrtually acknowedlged by John Merritt when he said

“There will undoubtedly be a conversation and a debate about that message.”

A danger with this tactic is that the ads become the story rather than people discussing the safety of young workers.  Let’s watch who supports the ads and who criticises.

When psychosocial hazards originate from poor management

There are still some OHS professionals who are uncomfortable with approaching workplace hazards that do not involve nip-points and energy-transfer.  In fact there are some who can’t cope with the industrial relations interplay with occupational health and safety. A major industrial relations problem ran for some time at Tristar Steering and Suspension.  The absurdity of this…

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Workplace Safety at Board Level

In May 2008, the Safety Institute of Australia held a conference where, for one day, CEOs and senior executives talked about their experiences with workplace safety and how they manage OHS in their workplaces and with their boards of management. The presentations were of variable interest but those that were good were very good.  The…

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

The safety context of sick leave entitlements

If I have a cold that could spread to my work colleagues, I take the day off.  I use my entitlement of sick leave to achieve two aims – to get myself well and to avoid infecting my workmates.  Both these aims are within the context of occupational health, safety and wellness.

The Australian newspaper today provided an outline of a new absentee-management  IT system that would provide good support for sick leave management.  You ring in sick and a qualified nurse will estimate the necessary period off work and notify your supervisor.  There are several flaws that I can see in the system:

  • What if a worker produces a medical certificate that contradicts the determination of the nurse?
  • Can diagnosis really be undertaken over the phone?
  • This service only seems to relate to health matters. What about stress?
  • Some companies allow for “doona days” where time off is allowed to “chill out” and to minimise stress.  Are these classified as a sick day?  They certainly provide health benefits.

The article’s focus is on the IT system but given that the article is written by the newspaper’s Human Resources writer, it is a little dismissive of the role of sick leave entitlements. 

“Mondayitis” may be a glib throwaway term but there is also an implication that taking Monday’s off repeatedly is a sign of abuse of the system.  Repeated regular absences may be an important symptom of a workplace matter that needs addressing and not just disciplining.  For instance, if your boss repeatedly embarasses you in the Monday-morning staff meeting, you may feel this is a good reason to avoid Mondays.  The better path would be to address the cause of the absence, should your employer provide such opportunities.

What does the government mean by “flexibility”?

Australian governments have all missed the solid, positive support that workplace safety can provide in pushing through useful OHS, and industrial, initiatives.  It would be a courageous employer who argued against any initiative that is intended to imporve the level of safety in any workplaces. 

The Deputy Prime Minister and IR Minister, Julia Gillard, reminded me of this when she spoke about the intoriduction of the government’s Fair Work Australia authority.  I have written elsewhere that the time is right for the Minister to also announce a “Safe Work Australia” authority which can arise out of ashes of the Australian Safety & Compensation Council. I would suggest that Safe Work Australia could also use the structure of the Workplace Ombudsman, have Comcare for the paperwork, establish a dedicated OHS stream in the justice system and use the moral authority of a new independent OHS Ombudsman.  This would be my mix for a strong, fair, independent and national OHS process for Australia.

In Gillard’s speech on Fair Work Australia though, she provided little hope of such an achievement.  This government continues to consider OHS as a separate discipline (or perhaps a subset) to Industrial Relations except when business accuses the unions of gaining IR advantage through OHS actions.  OHS could be legtitimately used to present consultation and consensus in a united IR strategy but there is little indication of that, indeed the gulf is widening. 

In Gillard’s speech on industrial relations she mentions “promoting workplace flexibility” as an important part of the platform.  This appears a couple of lines after a mention of “business flexibility”.  These are not interchangeable terms and seem to be included to soften the message, as there is no further mention, or expansion, of these concepts.

In HR and OHS terms we are looking at flexible work structures that can reduce workplace hazards, improve staff retention, increase career longevity and provide sustainable productivity.  Whether this is workplace flexibility or business flexibility seems to depend on which end of the management structure you come from but there should be no ambiguity in government statements on the issue of flexibility.  Then again maybe staff health, safety and welfare is only a distraction.

When a safety campaign is not a safety campaign

Last Friday the Australian Jockeys Association issued a media release in support of their safety campaign for increased compensation.  The campaign was surprising on a number of points.

The safety campaign is aimed to “help jockeys manage the risks inherent in their work”.  Over the last few years there has been a marked increase in safety work in this area.  In December 2005 media reported the following

“Safety helmet to be demonstrated in Melbourne
The prototype of a full face jockeys’ helmet designed to minimise head and facial injuries will be demonstrated at the Moonee Valley meeting in Melbourne on Friday.
Sydney riders got a look at helmet at Rosehill last Saturday and several adjustments have since been made. The helmet, which has been developed by Mark Bryant of Safety Helmet Systems, gives 40 per cent more protection and has a rear locking device enabling it to be removed easily in the case of suspected neck injury.”

This developed from the work undertaken by John Saxon and the National Jockey Safety Review Steering Committee established in early 2005.

WorkSafe Victoria supported a research project in March 2006 (which included the Victorian Jockeys Association) that made recommendations on the following OHS areas

  • HAZARD MANAGEMENT
  • INCIDENT REPORTING
  • CONSULTATION
  • HAZARD CONTROL
  • DESIGN ADVICE & GUIDES
  • TRACK EQUIPMENT
  • RIDING GEAR
  • EDUCATION, TRAINING AND MENTORING
  • INDUCTION AT TRACKS
  • BREAKING IN AND HORSE EDUCATION STANDARDS
  • PERSONAL HEALTH
  • INDUSTRY OH&S IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLAN

In June 2007 WorkSafe Victoria published a guide on HORSE STABLES AND TRACK RIDING SAFETY, which includes a section specifically related to horse riding and track safety.

The media release makes no mention of workers’ compensation yet compensation seems to be what they were requesting.

AJA CEP Paul Innes says, in the release,

“Under our plan, one per cent of race money would be directed to the AJA. This money would be used to: cover jockeys’ compulsory Public Liability premiums; fund a national Personal Accident Scheme for jockeys; support jockeys and their families in financial hardship due to death, illness and injury through the National Jockeys’ Trust; and fund other welfare programs”

The AJA website acknowledges that jockeys do receive workers compensation.  It says

“As Workers Compensation entitlements for jockeys depend on specific state and territory legislation, a jockeys entitlements to benefits in respect to a workplace injury, differs quite considerably throughout Australia.
The AJA has been recently in the process of making representations to the Principal Racing Authorities in those states that have inadequate compensation entitlements.”

So what the recent campaign is about is not necessarily reducing the risk to jockeys but an expression of dissatisfaction with current workers compensation arrangements.  If this is the case, why is this not explained in the media release and why not redirect the protest resources to the national reviews of OHS and workers compensation to which the current Federal government is committed?

In the AJA campaign booklet, Paul Innes emphasises on page 2 that

“… the overwhelming majority of jockeys aren’t highly paid. Quite the opposite, with a survey of our members showing that 50 percent gross no more than $50,000 per annum. That’s before paying for their equipment, transport costs, public liability and other insurance, as well as GST and income tax.
Disturbingly, surveys of our membership reveal many jockeys experience periods of financial hardship.”

The booklet further stresses that “jockeys are leaving the industry in large and unsustainable numbers. In the past nine years, jockey numbers have declined 43 percent” with the implication that it is financial pressures and not risks to health that are the more important concerns.

The campaign is entitled “Racing for Our Lives – A Plan to Protect Australian Jockeys”.  It is described by the AJA as a “safety campaign” – IT IS NOT.  This campaign is about income.  To label it as anything to do with safety is misleading and the Australian Jockey’s Association should be roundly criticised for misrepresenting this campaign.

Note: I tried to contact Paul Innes today for clarification.  He was unavailable but his staff said that he will contact me in a few days.  I will publish his response.

© 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