Audio summary on Executive Bonuses

In this short 6-minute audio episode, I unpack the troubling case of Cleanaway Waste Management’s CEO bonus reduction following three worker deaths and challenge the notion that trimming executive pay is a meaningful consequence, and whether safety is being treated as a KPI or a moral imperative.

With references to Woolworths, Orica, and SGH Group, Kevin explores how corporate Australia responds to workplace fatalities, and why investor pressure—not ethical leadership—often drives change. Featuring insights from the Australian Financial Review and safety scholars Andrew Hopkins and Sarah Maslen, this episode calls for a deeper reckoning with executive accountability and the true cost of preventable deaths.

Kevin Jones

More OHS voices needed

A new discussion paper from Safe Work Australia (SWA) is interesting in a curious way. Its purpose is confusing, and its final report will not be presented until mid-2026. SWA offers no definition of “best practice” but suggests that consideration should start from the objective of the Model Work Health and Safety Act:

“….to ensure the model WHS laws continue to provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.”

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

Should executives receive any bonuses if a workplace death has occurred?

Recently, an Australian executive at Cleanaway received a 30% reduction in his short-term bonus as a result of several workplace fatalities. This type of action is not uncommon. Although some of the media note this as a significant occupational health and safety (OHS) consequence, why not lose all of the bonus? Is this just taking away money that the executive had not yet received? Is this a deterrence?

Continue reading “Should executives receive any bonuses if a workplace death has occurred?”

Audio summary on reasonably practicable

In the next short audio episode, I discuss the myth of “reasonably practicable” within occupational health and safety (OHS) and the moral implications it carries. Safety is not just about adhering to laws but about upholding values and a moral code in the workplace. Legislation should be viewed as a tool, not a destination, and we must go beyond mere compliance to effectively protect workers from harm.

This thought-provoking discussion is based on an article from SafetyAtWorkBlog, published on August 21, 2025.

Kevin Jones

Heat, Harm and the Cost of Denial

As Victoria shivers in the middle of its Winter and a cop-killer runs loose in the mountains in the middle of the state, it may seem odd to think about the occupational health and safety (OHS) context of working in excessive heat. However, give us a couple of months, and it will be a hot topic again in the Southern Hemisphere. (First and last weather pun, I promise)

A recent article in The New York Times (paywalled) examined excessive heat in Spain, providing useful details on the changes being implemented—some old, some new.

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

Audio summary of OHS and workers’ compensation article

In the latest 5-minute audio episode, I discuss the intersections of occupational health and safety (OHS) and workers’ compensation, inspired by a recent seminar on “Using Biopsychosocial Risk Profiling to Inform Claim Triage” by ISCRR.

This episode explores the importance of integrating OHS findings into claim triage processes, the need for a more comprehensive understanding of workplace mental health, and the economic and legal implications of prevention.

Stepping outside one’s discipline can sharpen perspectives and drive meaningful change in workplace safety and health.

This is a summary of a longer and more detailed SafetyAtWorkBlog article from August 20, 2025.

Kevin Jones