Workplace safety lawyers are regular contributors to occupational health and safety (OHS) journals, usually writing about some OHS case law or recent, topical prosecution. Occasionally they write a more research-based article. The November 2017 edition of
It’s Jacaranda season in New South Wales which increases the pleasure of visiting the State for a safety-related conference. It has been over a decade since SafetyAtWorkBlog attended a conference of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Association of Australia (HFESA), little has changed in the organisation of the conference as HFESA had this conference pretty well organised even a decade ago.
The conference is a comparatively small affair with around 100 delegates, a minimal trade exhibition and only three streams. But that is all that is needed. The focus is on two elements:
- good quality presentations, largely from HFESA members; and
It is perhaps the latter where HFESA has it over some of the other safety-related associations.
Last week in Sydney and Melbourne law firm Clyde & Co conducted seminars reviewing 2017 through the workplace health and safety perspective. Alena Titterton (pictured right) hosted the Melbourne event which did not follow the proposed topics, but it was friendly and informative, and covered a lot of ground.
This article focuses on the statistics presented in the Year in Review document and some commentary from Titterton.
(An exclusive conversation with Titterton is to be in the next episode of Safety At Work Talks podcast)
“Then I went, ‘Oh hang on, I’ve normalised so much of this as part of my industry…. This last three months has really made us all take a long hard look at what we have even let ourselves think is acceptable.” – Sacha Horler
Such a statement is familiar to those working in the field of occupational health and safety (OHS). This normalisation, or habituation, has underpinned much of the discussion of what builds a safety culture – “the way things are done round here”. As a result of revelations and accusations pertaining to Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Robert Hughes, Harvey Weinstein, and Kevin Spacey, the entertainment industry around the world has been forced to assess the fundamental ethics on which sections of its industry are based. Continue reading “What do Weinstein, Spacey and others have to do with OHS?”
The latest safety management standard ISO45001 will be active in a few months’ time. It is the first international Standard in occupational health and safety (OHS), a fact supported by the length of time and horse-trading that has occurred in its development. It will be an important OHS document for many countries as, for some, it is a first. For Western countries, like Australia, New Zealand and Britain, ISO45001 is the latest in a long line of safety management standards, so the hype is more muted.
The new features of this Standard have been outlined in
“What gets measured, gets done” is a common phrase in corporate-speak but needs to be treated with caution in terms of occupational health and safety (OHS).
In The Australian newspaper of October 5 2017 (paywalled) an article about remuneration and innovation includes a brief but telling discussion of the perception of OHS.
Sylvia Falzon is a director of the companies Perpetual and Regis Healthcare. The article states that Falzon is a
“great believer that ‘what gets measured gets done”.
However, this belief has important limitations.
It seems that we are constantly being urged to innovate, to be creative and to think differently. This is equally true in the discipline of occupational health and safety (OHS), but part of thinking differently in the future should also involve reassessing the past.
It is often said that many the OHS performance indicators, predominantly Lost Time Injury (LTI) calculations, have shown a “plateau-ing” of safety performance. From this common position, companies have moved to new OHS training strategies that involve behaviours, values, cultural norms, safety culture and other employee and organisational recalibrations. But what if the case in support of these strategies was not as strong as first thought? What if the “plateau-ing” did not exist or the increase in performance was not as strong as the LTI-based data seemed to indicate?