politics – Page 12 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

In December 2011 the Victorian Liberal Government announced the removal of almost $A500 million from WorkCover funds to be placed in general revenue over the next four years. Some unions were outraged and began a protest petition. Labor politicians were similarly outraged.

The removal of the funds sounds odd as it is understood that these funds are originally generated through the workers compensation insurance premiums required to be paid by most Victorian businesses. The funds are then invested to provide a healthy return with the intention that the pool of WorkCover funds is used to support the OHS functions of WorkSafe and its inspectorate and to provide funds to assist in the rehabilitation of injured workers. Logically, the more funds available, the better the rehabilitation services and the better the prospect of people returning to work.

In this context, how come such a large amount can be removed without affecting the level of inspectorate and rehabilitation services? Does the current success of Australia’s economy really justify this move, even though a large part of that economic health is from States other than Victoria? Continue reading “Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover”

The productivity debate in Australia misses the opportunities presented by wellbeing

At the moment Australian business is campaigning on the need to increase productivity rates in Australian workplaces. It, with the recent support of some State governments and ideological colleagues, is seeking to achieve this by weakening the recent changes to the industrial relations structure encapsulated in the Fair Work Act. Fair Work Australia, trade unions and industry associations are primarily focussed on the industrial relations elements of this ideological fight over productivity.

Evidence of the potential productivity and economic benefits of improved occupational health and safety has been missing in the debate yet it is this linkage that Dame Carol Black has been talking about recently in Australia. It seems there is a keen audience for her perspective in Australia as she will be visiting the country four times in 2012.

At a recent OHS conference in Melbourne one speaker said some OHS positions in the United States are being renamed Occupational Health Productivity in recognition of the importance of wellbeing in the OHS roles. Renaming “wellbeing” as “productivity” provides a different context to OHS activities and should better gain senior executive attention as it would be easier to see how this activity fits with traditional operational thinking. Continue reading

Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil

WorkSafe Victoria’s Executive Director – Health and Safety, Ian Forsyth mentioned one of the necessary economic choices faced by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) when speaking at a breakfast seminar in early February 2012. He said that HSE is

“…under the pump politically [and] I think they’re either just, or about to, press the button on inspectors charging 133 pounds per hour for their workplace visits……If they find an issue they will be charging the employer 133 quid an hour and they hope to make 10 million pounds out of that”

The concept of fee for intervention (FFI) was new to most in the seminar audience and it needed more explanation and context although the seminar imposed tight time constraints. Given the economic status of the United Kingdom such cost recovery methods are logical, if unpalatable. Continue reading “Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil”

Executive Director says WorkSafe has been reactive on workplace mental health

Ian Forsyth, Health and Safety Executive Director, for WorkSafe Victoria spoke at a breakfast seminar on 7 February 2012. As a report on what WorkSafe has been doing and what they plan to do in 2012, it was reasonable but there were several issues that raised eyebrows or confused some in the audience.

Workplace Bullying

Ian Forsyth spent some time speaking about the importance of workplace bullying, repeatedly stressing that most calls to WorkSafe about bullying do not fit the definition that would allow WorkSafe to act. No mention was made of the divergent views on workplace bullying coming through the public comment phase of the draft national code on workplace bullying over the last few months.

Several times Forsyth stressed that there were other avenues for action or appeal on matters that do not fit the WorkSafe definition, such as the Fair Work Ombudsman and other authorities. This is the reality but the comments provide no real solution to handling the thousands of calls WorkSafe receives on workplace bullying each year. Continue reading “Executive Director says WorkSafe has been reactive on workplace mental health”

What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?

2012 02 13_0002_edited-1 — Dame Carol Black

The High Risk OHS Summit 2012 (why it’s high risk, no one seems to know) started with a bang with a detailed presentation from Dame Carol Black, a major instigator of work health reforms in the United Kingdom. Dame Black was able to provide several case studies and some data that provided a fresh perspective on what work and health and safety means to the British workers. For instance, she stated that of those employed in the UK, 26% are working with a health condition or disability. Black also said that 2.4% are off sick at any one time

Black also adds the personal to her presentations and admitted that she had not been aware of what makes “a good job” until beginning her review over five years ago. It is a terrific question to ask one’s self and colleagues. What makes a good job?

David Gregory of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also spoke at the conference and, as usually, was very cautious in what he said and how he said it. Continue reading “What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?”

The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled

Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is mentioned regularly in the SafetyAtWorkBlog, mostly because Tooma is one of the few who consider workplace safety in the broader social context. In The Australian newspaper on 10 February 2012 Tooma wrote that new work health and safety laws being introduced in Australia present

“…a march … into the traditional heartland of the public safety, product safety and professional liability territory, and it brings with it a criminalisation of what was once an exclusively civil liability domain. The new laws did not invent this trend, they just perfected it.”

Right-wing commentators would jump on this and declare “nanny state” but it is vitally important to note that this trend of “protectionism”, or the “compensation culture” as described in the United Kingdom, did not originate in occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. The OHS profession, business operators and workers will need to learn to accommodate and manage this social trend that has been imposed.

Tooma writes that ”

“…we have not had a proper debate about the incursion of the laws into nontraditional areas and its impact on the resources of firms, regulators and ultimately work safety standards.”

The debate may already be over. Continue reading “The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled”

The lobbying for “control” impedes corporate and OHS growth

“When we look at global trends it’s clear that Australia’s labour laws are not the primary cause of the contraction in manufacturing.”

Shelley Marshall, a Monash University researcher and Fair Wear Australia spokesperson made this statement at an Australian Senate inquiry on 2 February, 2012. The statement, reported in The Australian Financial Review (not available online), was used to illustrate the complexities of outworker protections under the Fair Work Act but it is, occasionally, worth looking a broader context. If one accepts that workplace safety is a subset of industrial relations laws (as SafetyAtWorkBlog does), Marshall’s comments help cut through some of the recent hyperbole from the industry associations and lobbyists about the significant economic and productivity costs of OHS law reform.

Marshall identified the extension of supply chains as affecting productivity. The issue of supply chain responsibility has an established OHS context as it relates to the issue of “control”, a matter raised as an objection to the implementation of new Work Health and Safety laws. Continue reading “The lobbying for “control” impedes corporate and OHS growth”

Tag: politics

Questions raised about the Victorian Government’s transparency on WorkCover

Like this:

The productivity debate in Australia misses the opportunities presented by wellbeing

Like this:

Fee For Intervention – a necessary economic evil

Like this:

Executive Director says WorkSafe has been reactive on workplace mental health

Like this:

What makes a good job? What makes a safe job?

Like this:

The social context of OHS laws is being poorly handled

Like this:

The lobbying for “control” impedes corporate and OHS growth

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: