Corporate responsibility – Page 7

The asbestos Triffid goes national

The union campaign on the eradication of asbestos from the island of Tasmania has entered the national political arena in Australia. On 29 October 2010, the Australian Minister for Workplace Relations, Chris Evans, announced that Geoff Fary, Assistant Secretary of the Australian Council for Trade Unions, will chair the newly established “Asbestos Management Review” (AMR).

The appointment and chairmanship are an acknowledgement that the trade union movement is the major advocate for occupational, public and environmental safety concerning asbestos in Australia.

Fary will be leaving his ACTU role in November 2010 to take up the new position.

One concern with the AMR, even in its early development is the task of raising awareness. Chris Evans stated that:

“It is critical that we develop a comprehensive understanding of the scope of the problem and set clear targets as to how we address issues relating to awareness, management and removal of asbestos.”

There is the risk of inactivity on any issue that seeks to raise awareness. As I wrote twelve months ago:

“The asbestos safety advocates should drop “awareness” from the week’s title because awareness equates to “aspirational targets”, former Prime Minister John Howard’s way of promising much and delivering nothing. Just as everyone accepts that smoking causes lung cancer and climate change exists, people know that asbestos can kill. Move away from awareness-raising to action.” Continue reading “The asbestos Triffid goes national”

Australian OHS expert in advisory role on Gulf oil spill

Australian Professor Andrew Hopkins is currently in the United States advising the Chemical Safety Board in its investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Several months ago it was rumoured that Hopkins would be part of the Commission of Inquiry, a rumour quickly denied by Hopkins and others.

According to a media release from FutureMedia, Hopkins will

“…spend several months working at the Board’s office in Denver as well as interviewing company managers in both the US and in London, where BP is headquartered.”

Hopkins has been interviewed by many media outlets in relation to the Gulf Oil Spill and BP’s safety culture due to his investigation of the Texas Oil Refinery explosion at a BP facility in 2005. Continue reading “Australian OHS expert in advisory role on Gulf oil spill”

Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?

Australian business groups have written an open letter to the New South Wales Government protesting about the decision to continue with some OHS processes specific to New South Wales regardless of previous commitments to support the harmonisation of OHS laws. As the letter was published as an advertisement (Page 6 of The Australian on 20 October 2010), it is not readily available online but the letter needs a little bit of deconstruction to better understand the politics and ideologies behind the letter and the business associations.

The letter says Australian industry signed on to the national harmonisation process because of the need for an effective way of improving safety, fair legal processes and national consistency. Yes, to some extent but more often industry groups have been calling for a reduction of red tape for the purpose of reducing administrative costs. Reducing the injuries and fatalities of workers is not the same as “improving the safety of Australia’s workplaces”.

The ideological gap is shown in the argument against the national imposition of “reverse onus of proof”. The letter uses Victoria as an example of a jurisdiction without the reverse onus of proof and says

“Victoria, which was used as the model for the new national laws and which does not have union prosecutions or reverse onus, has between 30% and 50% better safety outcomes than NSW depending on the measurement used“. (my emphasis)

What is a “better safety outcome”? Less deaths? Less cost to business? Is it fair to compare NSW to Victoria? And can the variation in “safety outcomes” be directly related to reverse onus of proof? Continue reading “Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?”

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Safety In Australia has posted an extraordinary article questioning the decision of the Safety Institute of Australia to proceed with a process to consider the expulsion of one of its members regardless of the member recently suffering a heart attack.

The article says that the SIA has received a doctor’s letter saying that Phil Kamay, the member in question, should not attend the special general meeting on health grounds but the SIA has decided to proceed regardless. Safety In Australia questions this decision on the grounds of fairness. It is unclear who, if anyone, will be presenting Kamay’s rebuttal of the accusations against him that have led to the expulsion moves.

On an unrelated note, it is understood that the SIA has two tables booked for Worksafe Victoria’s Safety Awards late next week and that Phil Kamay is a guest at one of those tables.

Kevin Jones

The stress of the wrongly accused

All work is stressful but by educating ourselves and with the support of colleagues and a strong and healthy professional association, it should be possible to function safely. That is the ideal but reality often seems to fall short.

Recently I was contacted by a person who had heard me speak about workplace bullying and wanted to know what they could do as they have been accused of being a bully. I contacted the person’s professional association who advised that they have no processes for dealing with those accused of bullying, only victims. There were few options for the person other than seeking legal advice.

This experience reminded me of how damaging and stressful it can be to be under investigation, regardless of whether the action is justified. Continue reading “The stress of the wrongly accused”

Never admitting guilt is contrary to OHS principles

Many companies plead guilty to breaches of OHS legislation but remain convinced that they have done nothing wrong.

Employers have been constantly frustrated by never being sure that they are complying with OHS law because compliance is now a very grey area and one that few people are brave enough to say has been achieved. So it is no surprise when an employer responds to a workplace incident by saying “I’ve done nothing wrong”. In their experience this statement is true but if they had a basic understanding of safety and OHS law (two very different things), they would know that if an incident occurs something must have gone wrong. Continue reading “Never admitting guilt is contrary to OHS principles”

Company pleads guilty over insulation installer death

In June 2010, Arrow Property Maintenance Pty Ltd was charged with failing to conduct its business or undertaking in a way that was electrically safe, after, accoridng to one media report:

“[A] 16-year-old boy was electrocuted while installing fibreglass insulation in the ceiling of a home at Stanwell, west of Rockhampton, on November 18, 2009.”

On 14 September 2010, Queensland Industrial Magistrate John McGrath heard the company plead guilty. Continue reading “Company pleads guilty over insulation installer death”

Tag: Corporate responsibility

The asbestos Triffid goes national

Like this:

Australian OHS expert in advisory role on Gulf oil spill

Like this:

Australian business is outraged over OHS changes but is it all piss and wind?

Like this:

Safety website says OHS association is heartless

Like this:

The stress of the wrongly accused

Like this:

Never admitting guilt is contrary to OHS principles

Like this:

Company pleads guilty over insulation installer death

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: