[This article was written by Helen Borger and was first published in the May-June 2014 edition of National Safety – a magazine of the National Safety Council of Australia. Reproduced with permission. (Links added by SafetyAtWorkBlog editor) ]
A quick online search reveals a plethora of advice and information about choosing the right mood-altering paint colours for office walls and selecting the best beanbags for worksite chill-out spaces. Not to mention the availability of on-site massages to ease employee tension and anxiety.
It’s tempting to make these interventions the centrepiece of workplace mental health and wellbeing programs because they are feel-good, visible signs of management action that are relatively easy to implement. Continue reading “Mind Set – Mental Health in Australian Workplaces”
Paul Breslin caused a stir in Australia’s OHS sector in 2013 with his costing of one element of managing high risk workplaces, the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS). In 2014, an update of Breslin’s research was published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Health, Safety and Environment (only available through subscription), in which he states that
“Industry stakeholders claim that the SWMS Process is no longer manageable and that this document process has failed the industry and has basically outlived its usefulness” and
Recent “criticism has centred on the fact that SWMSs, which were intended to be easy to use documents, have often become so large and complex that they are impractical to use”.
(The latter statement was supported by speakers at a recent (poorly attended) Safety In Construction Conference in Melbourne, Australia.)
Some general industry criticism has been aimed at occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators such as the various WorkSafes and the
Recently Safe Work Australia released its first annual statement on “Psychosocial health and safety and bullying in Australian workplaces“. This is a terrific initiative but it has a significant flaw – it combines statistical data for harassment and bullying even though they are different hazards, have different remedies, are usually handled by different professions in many organisations, and have different external appeal options.
The Annual Statement itself quotes its origin:
“The Committee recommends that Safe Work Australia issues an annual national statement which updates any emerging trends of its collated data from each of the state and territory regulators, and the Commonwealth, with respect to psychosocial health and safety generally and workplace bullying specifically“. (emphasis added)
Nowhere in the Annual Statement is there any data specifically addressing workplace bullying. Bullying is always linked with harassment, contrary to the brief from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment’s workplace bullying report, as I read it.
Continue reading “The first Annual Statement on workplace bullying data gets a C+”
One of the occupational health and safety (OHS) issues that does not “travel” well across international borders is workplace bullying. Each country usually has its own laws (if at all). Each operates in a different culture and each has a different definition of what constitutes workplace bullying. Those who communicate and publish information on this hazard need to be sure that an article is relevant to its readership or at least clearly indicate the article’s overseas origin.
On 28 May 2014 the Australian Financial Review (AFR) published a
At a recent seminar an HSE Manager of a large Australian company revealed that the company has dropped its support of “triple certification” – external certification to safety, quality and environmental standards. This caused a murmur in the audience as external certification has long been seen as an unavoidable element (and cost) of operating a large business. The HSE Manager explained that the company had assessed all of the resources it provides for certification in light of the benefits it receives and determined that the company could still do well without the external certification.
Certification has been considered as a public and commercial statement of good business management. Certification is also required as a minimum requirement to qualify for tenders for government works. But certification has also been seen as a costly and disruptive burden. This perception has strengthened as new regulators have imposed compliance requirements that are usually satisfied through external or third-party audits. This auditing complexity has sometimes been mentioned in the context of the “red tape” debate.