WorkSafe – Page 55 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Is OHS harmonisation a dead parrot or is it just pining?

In The Australian newspaper on 3 April 2012, Judith Sloan presents a useful summary of the status of the OHS harmonisation process. Many of her criticisms are valid but she has not realised that the new Work Health and Safety laws stopped being occupational health and safety laws some time ago. It is easier to understand the proposed changes if one accepts that these laws have broadened beyond the workplace to operate more as public health and safety laws.

It is possible to accept Sloan’s assertion of the “demise”of OHS harmonisation but if seen in the light of an integrated public/workplace health and safety law, the harmonisation process may be a welcome beginning to a broader application of safety in public and occupational lives.

The acceptance of this interpretation provides very different comparisons and linkages. For instance, the shopper tripping on a mat in the vegetable section of a supermarket was likely, in the past, to receive recompense through public liability insurance. Now it could equally be under OHS laws. The regulation of potential legionella sources was through the Health Department, even though many of these are in workplaces and often affect workers first. Should cooling towers have been assessed by hygienists or occupational hygienists? Should these be managed under an employer’s OHS management system or through the facilities manager or landlord?
Continue reading “Is OHS harmonisation a dead parrot or is it just pining?”

Union protest is a dry run for Workcover Review and Workers’ Memorial Day

The next stage of a union campaign over the management of workers’ compensation premiums in Victoria occurred in late March 2012. Trade unions are angry that the Liberal Government of Premier Ted Baillieu has chosen to remove almost $A500 million from the Victorian Workcover Authority (VWA) fund to be allocated to general revenue. On the steps of Parliament several hundred union members and interested parties were told to “keep their hands off workers’ money”. Some of this hyperbole needs a little analysis.

Several unionists stated that the workers’ compensation fund is “workers’ money”. Yes and no. Yes in that almost revenue created by business comes from labour but when workers’ compensation is required, by law, to be paid to the Workcover Authority by employers, the ownership is a couple of steps away from workers. Also Workcover takes the premiums as an economic base to invest in the hope of increasing the total fund through dividends and other returns. The total fund includes premiums and returns on investment, over which workers have no influence. Continue reading “Union protest is a dry run for Workcover Review and Workers’ Memorial Day”

Safety profession needs to counter the influence of the red tape ideologues

Australia’s safety profession has a considerable challenge over the next few years, one for which it seems to be poorly prepared. The challenge comes not from new occupational health and safety (OHS) laws or new hazards but from entrenched ideologies. As the country moves to an increasing political conservatism, safety needs to prove it is as important as other issues, such as productivity and job creation, by vying for political and corporate attention.

The challenge is that the Australian conservative political parties are ideologically opposed to almost ANY laws that could possibly impede economic growth and they believe that occupational health and safety laws impede growth by disrupting work and adding unnecessary operational costs. This is not the reality but the ideology is so ingrained into conservative politics that the safety profession will gain very little traction in the next few years without a strategy to contest this ideological fantasy.

The conservative Liberal Government in Victoria forestalled introduction of the model Work Health and Safety laws to undertake an assessment of the economic impacts of the laws on the State’s businesses, despite an assessment having already occurred through the regulatory impact process. The review had a tenuous justification but served the political purpose of distancing the conservative politicians in Victoria from the Labor Party that is in power federally. The review also plays to its traditional business sector supporters indicating that the Liberal Party takes potential regulatory impositions seriously. It is believed the report of the review undertaken by PriceWaterhouseCoopers is now with the Victorian Government for its consideration.
Continue reading “Safety profession needs to counter the influence of the red tape ideologues”

Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog wrote:

“In many industries, and in the safety profession itself, people confuse the OHS laws of injury prevention with the Compensation laws of rehabilitation.”

This misunderstanding also extends to the public. Every so often, this blog receives comments from irate readers who express their frustration with “WorkSafe” or “Workcover”. It is a frustration that is shared by many but the frustration is frequently aimed at the wrong target. Most of the frustration stems from real or perceived injustice in the workers compensation system, but the criticism refers repeatedly to the OHS prevention and enforcement authority. Continue reading “Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands”

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

In December 2011 the Victorian Liberal Government announced the removal of almost $A500 million from WorkCover funds to be placed in general revenue over the next four years. Some unions were outraged and began a protest petition. Labor politicians were similarly outraged.

The removal of the funds sounds odd as it is understood that these funds are originally generated through the workers compensation insurance premiums required to be paid by most Victorian businesses. The funds are then invested to provide a healthy return with the intention that the pool of WorkCover funds is used to support the OHS functions of WorkSafe and its inspectorate and to provide funds to assist in the rehabilitation of injured workers. Logically, the more funds available, the better the rehabilitation services and the better the prospect of people returning to work.

In this context, how come such a large amount can be removed without affecting the level of inspectorate and rehabilitation services? Does the current success of Australia’s economy really justify this move, even though a large part of that economic health is from States other than Victoria? Continue reading “Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover”

A new approach to OHS advertisements is required in Australia

Workcover NSW should be supported in its new advertising campaign “Here to Help”. Two ads are currently available on-line and are embedded below. What is surprising is that OHS regulators still feel the need to create new awareness-raising campaigns rather than providing examples of the consequences of non-compliance.

It may be unfair to criticise an OHS regulator for an advertising campaign that raises the awareness of the need for safety, particularly if that ad is only the most visible element of a new enforcement strategy but it would be refreshing to see a different type of ad, one that speaks directly to business owners, with perhaps a similar one to workers.

What I see is an advertisement similar to the famous Yul Brynner anti-smoking ad but with a script similar to this:

[Close up of head and shoulders of a businessman facing the camera. Camera slowly pulls back as businessman speaks.] Continue reading “A new approach to OHS advertisements is required in Australia”

Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil

WorkSafe Victoria’s Executive Director – Health and Safety, Ian Forsyth mentioned one of the necessary economic choices faced by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) when speaking at a breakfast seminar in early February 2012. He said that HSE is

“…under the pump politically [and] I think they’re either just, or about to, press the button on inspectors charging 133 pounds per hour for their workplace visits……If they find an issue they will be charging the employer 133 quid an hour and they hope to make 10 million pounds out of that”

The concept of fee for intervention (FFI) was new to most in the seminar audience and it needed more explanation and context although the seminar imposed tight time constraints. Given the economic status of the United Kingdom such cost recovery methods are logical, if unpalatable. Continue reading “Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil”

Category: WorkSafe

Is OHS harmonisation a dead parrot or is it just pining?

Like this:

Union protest is a dry run for Workcover Review and Workers’ Memorial Day

Like this:

Safety profession needs to counter the influence of the red tape ideologues

Like this:

Differentiate the WorkCover and WorkSafe brands

Like this:

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

Like this:

A new approach to OHS advertisements is required in Australia

Like this:

Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: