microbusiness – Page 2 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Reviewing Today Tonight’s insulation exclusive

As an example of “tabloid TV” the Today Tonight (TT) report broadcast on 17 February 2010 concerning children assisting workers to install insulation, was very good. It probably benefited from my own appearances remaining brief.

The topicality of a story on the home insulation industry could not have been higher yesterday as a Senate inquiry into the Australian Government’s environment and job creation scheme held hearings in Melbourne. TT led its show with the scandalous report.

The video of a young boy handling large bags of insulation on a roof is disturbing; the unprotected handling of the insulation material by the young boy is similar. That the children were allowed to be on the roof by the homeowner and parents is a parental supervision issue and outside the scope of this blog. That the workers allowed them to be present and did not tell the children to get down is more disturbing and a clear breach of the workers’ OHS obligations. Continue reading “Reviewing Today Tonight’s insulation exclusive”

Small business can equal depression, stress and mental health problems

According to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 16 February 2010 (only available online through subscription):

“The isolation of working at home or in a small shop or factory by themselves can wear down many in the small and medium enterprise sector. In the most severe cases, it can lead to depression and cause major problems for their family and business.”

Andrew Griffiths provides a quote that illustrates well the work/life conflict in the small business sector: Continue reading “Small business can equal depression, stress and mental health problems”

“Respect Agenda” – seriously?

Recently the Victorian Premier, John Brumby reshuffled his Cabinet and created a new portfolio the “Respect Agenda”. The Minister with responsibility for the portfolio is ex-footballer Justin Madden. Very little has been revealed about the agenda, which has been launched after a major international kerfuffle over serious racist attacks against Indian students. It is likely to be relevant that 2010 is an election year for Victoria.

It is useful to consider these political pledges in the light of the workplace-related suicide of Brodie Panlock in 2006. Continue reading ““Respect Agenda” – seriously?”

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

According to an AAP report released on 8 October 2009, Australian homeowners could be liable for the injuries of workmen on their premises. According to Michael Tooma of Deacons law firm, the breadth of the proposed OHS model laws could cause big legal problems for homeowners (as if interest rate rises and balcony collapses were not enough).

“..if I call out a tradesperson to do some work at my home, my home is their workplace and I would be a person at their workplace. As such, I would have a duty to take reasonable care for my own safety and the safety of others and to cooperate with their reasonable instructions in my own home. If I breach that duty I could be liable for a criminal offence.”

The duty of care applied regardless of whether the worker was injured or not, Mr Tooma said. “If the person is exposed to risk, then potentially you’ve committed a criminal offence. Previously, there were clear boundaries around a home that really made it sacrosanct.”

The crux of Tooma’s argument is that

“The definition of a workplace in the legislation is so broad that any place where a worker works is deemed a workplace”.

Many corporations have struggled with their OHS obligations for staff who telecommute. Home-based businesses have a clearer legislative responsibility even if many of them are unaware of the responsibility.

The Model Safe Work Provisions Exposure Draft’s defines a workplace as follows

“(1) A workplace is a place where work is carried out for a business or undertaking and includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work.
(2) In this section, place includes:

(a) vehicle, ship, boat, aircraft or other mobile structure; and
(b) any installation on land, on the bed of any waters or floating on any waters.”

In the Discussion Paper there is an example provided of what is not a business

“A householder hiring an electrician to repair a faulty electrical socket in their home (however the electrician will either be a worker for a business or undertaking or a business or undertaking in their own right if they are self employed).”

Tooma’s point would be what if the electrician was undertaking the work in a home office (if designated) or the whole house/workplace.

Of all the “modern working arrangements” listed in the Discussion Paper, working from home is not listed. If it had been, Tooma’s comments would have seemed less alarmist, probably because their would have been more general alarm as perhaps hinted at in the AAP article.

In that article, Tooma also says

“We’re talking about the Occupational Health and Safety Act intruding on the family home and imposing criminal liability on individual home owners under legislation that is supposedly aimed at safety in the workplace.

“It’s really a quirk of the way the definition works in that everywhere a worker goes, so goes the workplace.”

AAP does not treat the issue as “a quirk”. Not with a headline in The Canberra Times of “Home owners ‘could be liable'”.

Tooma may have raised a valid point but the AAP article shows how the media can “ice the cake” of an issue. It may have been better to present this quirk to the Government through the Public Comment process (and I am sure Tooma will) but it is also on all OHS advocates to bring the relevance of OHS matters to the attention of those who may not understand the risks they could be exposed to. This blog article could be considered an example of this.

The Public Comment phase on the draft documents is still young. If Tooma’s intention was to stir debate (and not alarm) he has raised an interesting issue that should be discussed. Whether the wider community of homeowners, home-based businesses and telecommuters take this perspective, we’re yet to see.

Kevin Jones

Who is all this OHS harmonisation for?

The public comment phase of Australia’s review of its OHS law harmonisation process begins in September 2009. To a large degree it is at this stage that the stakeholders can start refining their horse-trading. It will also be interesting to watch as the distraction of the new industrial relations legislation has gone since that law was introduced.

Safe Work Australia is using the traditional limited consultative troika – government, employers and unions, and will need to give public submissions considerable weight to balance interests.

Two of the employer groups have already started setting out some guidelines and expectations.

A statement from the CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Mitchell Hooke, was released on 14 August 2009. The only new element of the media release was

“The MCA has called for the National Mine Safety Framework to form the basis of national minerals-industry specific regulation within the Model OH&S Act.”

One of the aims of the harmonisation movement is to minimise regulations for specific industry sectors.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry was more expansive in its statement of 5 August 2009. The ACCI overstates the cost burden of OHS legislation in each State. The Model OHS Law Review Panel found overwhelming similarities between the legislations but acknowledged that the variations would be difficult to resolve.

The following quote from the ACCI statement illustrates the value of the ACCI perspective and also its major shortcoming.

“However, harmonisation of legislation is not of itself the solution to the compliance burden problem, but rather it will be the final content and quality of the model legislation and the approach to its implementation and enforcement that will be the critical determinants as to whether or not productivity gains are in fact realised in practice.”

It is accurate to say that the success of the legislation will be gauged by its implementation and enforcement. However, the conservative ideology of the ACCI is on show when it states that the harmonisation is intended to provide productivity gains. OHS legislation’s first aim should always be to improve the safety and health of the workforce which, in turn, increases productivity.

ACCI and other employer associations too often jump the safety element and go straight to productivity yet it is the safety of employees that is by far the greatest value that employers share with the community and the unions. Elsewhere in the ACCI statement, the importance of safety is acknowledged but the communication of priorities is muddled.

The ACCI also says “OHS laws should never be used as a vehicle to drive other agendas,” and then goes on to push issues of industrial relations and union behaviour that are not the core focus of the OHS model legislation process.

The ACCI statement closes on a more philosophical approach to OHS. It talks about “cooperative development”, “safety culture” and “continued engagements” but its own cooperation can be seen as conditional in the majority of the statement.

There is one statement that all involved in OHS law reform should consider. The ACCI states that practical and easily understood regulation is required.

“This is particularly important for the majority of employers who operate only in one jurisdiction and who will not receive a direct productivity benefit under harmonisation but who will bear the cost of understanding and complying with a new OHS Act and regulations.”

Not much will change for those companies who operate in a single State of Australia. It is also useful to note that the vast majority of businesses in Australia are small- and micro-businesses for whom all of this national hoo-ha is almost totally irrelevant.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said in a webpage that was updated in September 2008 that

“Small businesses comprise the vast majority of Australian businesses. The importance of the small business sector to the Australian economy is recognised by researchers, government and policy makers as well as the business community as a whole. It is acknowledged that the characteristics and business drivers of small business are potentially very different to those of larger businesses and as such require specific, targeted policy initiatives. Central to the development of effective policy initiatives is a sound understanding of the nature and characteristics of this sector of the business economy.”

The employer associations do not represent the largest employment sectors in Australia – small businesses, micro-businesses and home-based businesses. Nor do the trade unions. So who exactly are the biggest beneficiaries of this whole OHS harmonisation process?

Kevin Jones

Drugs in the workplace – small business blog

The Age newspaper included a short article on drugs in the workplace in a small business pages on 4 August 2009. For OHS professionals there is little new information but it’s a nice summary of some of the legal and management challenges on this workplace hazard.

Sadly some of the reply comments to the article online are demoralising.

Kevin Jones

Does a new mobile telephone equal productivity increases?

The largest Australian telecommunications company, Telstra, announced the release today of a new service for mobile telephones aimed at the business sector. Below are some excerpts from the media release:

“Telstra launches new smartphone to power workforce productivity

August 3, 2009 – Business professionals have a powerful new productivity tool at their disposal with the launch of the new HTC Snap on the Telstra Next G™ network.

Available from 11 August, the Snap is a Windows Mobile®-powered smartphone that helps users get the most out of every hour by connecting them with email, their office calendar and the mobile internet in real-time….

Telstra Business Executive Director, Cathy Aston, said the HTC snap was the ideal productivity device for busy business people who need to respond to clients and manage their email on the go.”

The email-ready HTC Snap lets users steal back otherwise lost work time by keeping them

connected to email on the commute to work, on the way to the airport or when waiting to attend a

meeting.

“The email-ready HTC Snap lets users steal back otherwise lost work time by keeping them connected to email on the commute to work, on the way to the airport or when waiting to attend a meeting.”

“Telstra Product Management Executive Director, Ross Fielding, said this remarkably slim smartphone set a new benchmark for productivity device affordability and would appeal to business people who demand always-on email, as well as consumers who are increasingly interested in messaging capabilities on the go.”

The words emphasised above indicate a dominant thought that business people are obliged to be contactable at all times of the week. Research is beginning to show that this is becoming an unsafe practice, if it is not already (see below). The “steal back otherwise lost work time” is of concern. What time is being referred to going to the toilet, spending time with one’s family, countering fatigue and stress through sleep?

In December 2008, Telstra undertook a survey of small business operators. The survey showed that many would be working over the Christmas break. Telstra Business Group Managing Director, Deena Shiff said

“In 2008, Australian SMEs have been world leaders in the take up of mobile technology based on the Telstra Next G™ network – in fact businesses are now using mobile technology more than fixed line phones and data….

The key is to use technology not to intrude on personal time, but to manage the ongoing needs of the business in a more efficient way that doesn’t keep people away from family.” [my emphasis]

In 2006, the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Developmetn (CIPD) undertook research that said

“The phenomenon of “teleworking” has been overexaggerated, is unlikely ever to be a prospect for the majority of workers, and may be overshadowing far more effective means of improving work-life balance…”

The most important feature of modern mobile phones is the OFF button.

Kevin Jones

Tag: microbusiness

Reviewing Today Tonight’s insulation exclusive

Like this:

Small business can equal depression, stress and mental health problems

Like this:

“Respect Agenda” – seriously?

Like this:

Perhaps a step too far on homes as workplaces

Like this:

Who is all this OHS harmonisation for?

Like this:

Drugs in the workplace – small business blog

Like this:

Does a new mobile telephone equal productivity increases?

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: