Tag: OHS

Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal

On 18 October 2011, there was a brief discussion on workplace bullying in the ACT Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).  The question to Chief Minister Katy Gallagher, stemmed, ostensibly, from a recent WorkSafe ACT assessment of Canberra restaurants and food retailers.  The assessment identified that:

“… only 66 per cent of food outlets were compliant with workplace bullying regulations.”

Such a statement needs considerable explanation to be of use in safety management but it led to a further question from Greens MP Meredith Hunter, one which indicates the confused status of workplace bullying control options.

“Minister, what consideration has the ACT government given to bullying as a ground for discrimination under the ACT’s Discrimination Act, which would give complainants and respondents to bullying complaints access to the Human Rights Commission’s investigation and conciliation functions and clear remedies for victimisation of a person making a complaint?”

It is unreasonable to expect that a Code of Practice on workplace bullying drafted under OHS laws would have the capacity to control the hazard, or provide sufficient guidance, when there are other avenues for restitution that are far more involved, such as discrimination and human rights commissions and tribunals. Continue reading “Bullying has many causes and too many avenues of appeal”

Pro-active safety means nothing

Australia has embraced a bizarre safety concept of “pro-activity” that is confusing our understanding of intention in the next phase of OHS laws, active safety management.

It is essential to have an active safety management system, a safety management system that is not passive.  Having a positive duty for safety, as required by the upcoming new Australian OHS laws, means that companies must be active in managing safety and not sitting back, complacent in their (supposed) compliance, waiting to react to the latest hazard and implementing a new policy related to the hazard but not fixing the hazard.  It is a little like the difference between active and passive fall protection devices.  In which would you place greater trust in saving your life?

Many safety people urge others to be pro-active on safety but “pro” has many meanings.  (a brief history of the term is at wiktionary) The definition most relevant to the new terminological context is “before in time, place, order….”  It is urging businesses and professionals to anticipate the action on safety, or to bring that action forward in time.  Is it any surprise that companies look at safety professionals and wonder what they are on about?

“Pro” may also imply an increased level of support for safety, as in a “pro and con”.  It is doubtful that the definition of ‘pro” as being shortened from “prostitute” is relevant in the OHS context but it would only take a prostitution support group to start advocating a “pro-active safety management system” for the sex industry for “pro-active” to die the death it deserves.

Every industry and profession has jargon but every industry and profession must also communicate with society in Plain English.  Jargon has no place in broad communication and workplace safety, to succeed and improve, must communicate broadly.

Let’s put “pro-active” with other unhelpful safety terms such as “best practice” and “zero harm”.

Kevin Jones

An example of how safety can be misperceived as expensive

Today I received an email that had the intriguing heading of:

“Do you fully understand what the harmonisation laws mean to your organisation?”

As I don’t “fully understand” harmonisation and spammers don’t usually use OHS as a spam tool, I opened the email.  It was a promotion for an upcoming conference called Supply Chain and Logistics Safety 2012.  The harmonisation of Australia’s OHS was not in the title but was mentioned in the email body.

“Although some states appear to be delaying their timeline for harmonisation implementation, businesses in reality can’t afford to wait. You will not only need to meet the regulation, but devise strategies to prevent your bottom line being impacted.”

No one wants an impacted bottom line (there’s a cream for that) and my unease increased by the writer implying that the two major issues of OHS harmonisation was to comply – “to meet the regulation” – and to protect profits.   Continue reading “An example of how safety can be misperceived as expensive”

Weekly Times sets the tone for quad bike safety research

The Weekly Times newspaper continues to report on the changing attitudes to quad bike safety in Australia.  In its 19 October 2011 edition it featured an article that for the first time in the Australian print media questions the US research statistics on quad bike safety on which motorcycle manufacturers have been relying for many years.

The research by Dynamic Research, predominantly undertaken by John Zellner, has been questioned before but the appearance of such an article in the mainstream, albeit rural, press indicates a degree of research maturity in this area in Australia.  It also indicates the possibilities presented by the internet and social media for promoting change and questioning important matters that do not usually garner mainstream attention. Continue reading “Weekly Times sets the tone for quad bike safety research”

Media releases are all positive for Safe Work Australia Week

Further to yesterday’s blog post that mentioned Australia’s Minister for Workplace Relations, Chris Evans, it is worth noting his new media release (not yet available online) in support of the 2011 Safe Work Australia Week.

On 23 October 2011,  Minister Evans said all the “right” things:

“National Safe Work Australia Week, an annual initiative of Safe Work Australia, is an opportunity for all Australians to think about how to improve work health and safety in their workplace and in their community,” Senator Evans said. “Each and every worker deserves to go to work each day and return home safely each night.”

Senator Evans said workers deserve the same decent safety standards across Australia.

“This is why the Gillard Government is committed to harmonising Occupational Health and Safety laws by January 2012,” Senator Evans said.  “The new laws will cut red tape and ensure that all workers have equal protections regardless of where they live and work.  They will apply not only to employees, but also to contractors and their employees, subcontractors, labour hire workers, apprentices and volunteers.  These reforms are vitally important for the safety of employees in an increasingly mobile labour force.”

Significantly, the continued refusals by Western Australia and Victoria to implement the OHS reforms prior to 1 January 2011 are not mentioned but it is understandable for the Minister to try to set the positive tone of Safe Work Australia Week.

On 21 October 2011, the Chair of Safe Work Australia, Tom Phillips, fails to mention OHS harmonisation in his media release which is his prerogative but it would have been better to address the elephant in the room – OHS harmonisation.

The harmonisation deadline is only a couple of months away and it would have been good to see some urgency on the issue from this prominent speakers.

Kevin Jones

Victorian WorkSafe Awards raise eyebrows and questions

Last week, WorkSafe Victoria held its 2011 Work Safe Awards night.  The host was Shane Jacobson, probably most well-known for his film Kenny.  SafetyAtWorkBlog has been informed that WorkSafe’s Executive Director, Ian Forsythe, was approached by an attendee on the evening complaining about the inappropriateness of some of Jacobson’s jokes and comments.

WorkSafe Victoria has been contacted for clarification of this complaint but as an attendee oneself, there were several times that laughter was subdued and eyebrows raised, particularly with one dubious homosexual reference and a joke about wives and guns.

Judging

A further, more general, concern was expressed to SafetyAtWorkBlog on the night about the awarding of one award to a person who is contracted by WorkSafe to promote OHS in rural areas.  The concern raises the issue again about the benefits of having a transparent judging criteria, or judging process, for safety awards. Continue reading “Victorian WorkSafe Awards raise eyebrows and questions”

Victoria risks $50 million over OHS reforms

A SafetyAtWorkBlog article from last week said that Victoria’s Work Safe Week started flat and that speakers at some events were unsure of the future of OHS laws due to Minister Gordon Rich-Phillips‘ unprecedented call to the Federal Government for a 12-month delay.

A spokesperson for the Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Chris Evans, has told SafetyAtWorkBlog that Victoria is risking $A50 million of federal government funding if it does not implement OHS reforms:

“….the Victorian Government has already factored in around $50 million in reward payments for the 2011-12 budget forward estimates. These reward payments are dependent on Victoria implementing agreed reforms in accordance with key milestones. This includes OHS reform.”

This economic reality is perhaps behind Rich-Phillips’ continuing emphasis that the Victorian Government continues to support the “principle” of harmonisation.

At the 2011 Work Safe Awards on 19 October 2011, Minister  Rich-Phillips seemed to identify a strategy that is contrary to the application of that principle.   Continue reading “Victoria risks $50 million over OHS reforms”

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2026. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd