The Australian media has widely reported that Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, exists on three-hours sleep per night. He doesn’t and Professor Drew Dawson, a prominent Australian sleep researcher, discusses the exaggeration of high-flying professionals in an article at Crikey.com on 21 July 2009.
More research of Professor Drew Dawson, Director, Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia, is available online.
Managing workplace absenteeism often ignores the OHS issues that are integral to the issue.
On 20 July 2009 the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development released its findings on the issue in its annual Absence Management Survey.
The media statement identifies the reasons for short- and long-term absences.
- “The main causes of short-term absence are minor illnesses such as colds and flu, stress and musculoskeletal conditions
- The main causes of long-term absence are acute medical conditions, stress and mental health conditions and musculoskeletal conditions and back pain.”
However, the media statement identifies no measures to counter these workplace hazards, preferring to focus on ancillary factors such as job security.
Willmott focuses on a comparison between absenteeism in the public and private sectors. The difference is statistically interesting, perhaps, but does not address the causes of absenteeism.
Willmot also illustrates the dominant HR position on absenteeism.
“Effective absence management involves finding a balance between providing support to help employees with health problems stay in and return to work and taking consistent and firm action against employees that try and take advantage of organisations’ occupational sick pay schemes.”
This manages the effect of the problem but not the problem itself which CIPD’s own research has identified as musculoskeletal conditions, stress, mental health and, to a lesser extent, colds and flu.
The comments by the Senior Public Policy Adviser for the CIPD, BenWillmott, are a good example of how some human resources or management organisations miss the health and safety element.
The CIPD does acknowledge the importance of workplace health and safety as illustrated by its reply to the Health & Safety Executive’s draft strategy. It also says in the Absence Management Survey that, in the return-to-work context:
“The involvement of occupational health professionals is identified as the most effective approach for managing long-term absence…”
However even though it sees itself as the “professional and accreditation body for the UK HR profession [which represents] over 130,000 HR professionals at every level of business and in every sector”, it hesitates to take a leadership role in health and safety. It’s a pity because applying the apparent professionalism of the Institute and its membership strength to OHS could achieve great social and business efficiencies.
For those wanting to look at comparison data, CIPD makes available its previous surveys for download.
US research scientists have released a new article about assessing the exposure risk of nanomaterial. Treye Thomas, Tina Bahadori, Nora Savage and Karluss Thomas have published “Moving toward exposure and risk evaluation of nanomaterials: challenges and future directions“.
Refreshingly they take a whole-of-cycle approach to the materials and, even though, the conclusion is that more research is required, that they are approaching the hazard in this fashion is a very positive move.
They say that nanomaterials will only become an acceptable technology if people understand the risks involved with the products.
“The long-term viability of nanomaterials and public acceptance of this new technology will depend on the ability to assess adequately the potential health risks from nanomaterial exposures throughout their lifecycle.”
This openness by manufacturers has not been evident up to now as the commercial application of the technology is early days.
The researchers advocate two elements to further investigation of nanomaterials.
“The first is metrology and developing tools to characterize and measure relevant attributes of nanomaterials, including particle size, number, and surface area. The second is lifecycle analysis of nanomaterials in consumer goods and their transformation and degradation in products throughout the lifecycle of materials.”
There are several medical articles included on the Wiley Interscience website that may be of relevance but it is heartening to see some interdisciplinary thinking in this field.
The issue of driving while using a mobile is a perennial issue for the media but nothing much changes. The New York Times on 20 July 2009 carried an article on the latest research which confirms many previous studies that using a mobile phone while driving increases the risk of an accident.
No US State has banned the practice because social use of mobile phones has become so widespread that any ban is impossible to enforce effectively.
In January 2009, SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on the recommendations from WorkSafe Victoria on the matter. Even in their guide they would say nothing more than
“recommend that hands free calls be kept to a minimum”.
At some point for most workplace hazards, the evidence outweighs the enforcement difficulties and bans ensue. It has happened to asbestos, it has happened with smoking, but these are decades after dancing around the most effective control measure – elimination.
The industrialised world, in particular, has been wrestling with the hazard of phones and driving for well over a decade. One report from 2002 said
“Tests carried out by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory established that driving behaviour is impaired more by using a mobile phone than by being over the legal alcohol limit.”
The footnote to this comment said
“Previous research has shown that phone conversations while driving impair performance. It was difficult to quantify the risk of this impairment because the reference was usually made to normal driving without using a phone. “Worse than normal driving” does not necessarily mean dangerous. There was a need therefore to benchmark driving performance while using a mobile phone to a clearly dangerous level of performance. Driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit is an established danger.”
There are always conditions set with research findings but these are sensible and valid.
According to a 2004 report by the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported by UPI (unable to find a link)
“…estimated 8 percent of all motorists — about 1.2 million drivers — were using cell phones at any given time while driving, up from 6 percent in 2002 and 4 percent in 2000. About 800,000 of those drivers used handsets and not hands-free devices.
- Handheld cell phone use increased from 5 percent to 8 percent among drivers aged 15 to 24 between 2002 and 2004.
- Use of cellular-phone handsets increased from 4 percent to 6 percent of female drivers, while the number of men talking on handheld cell phones while driving remained constant at 4 percent.
- Motorists were more likely to use a cell phone while driving alone, but drivers with children in the vehicle were just as likely to use the phone as those without children in the car.”
For those readers who like dollar figures, the same UPI article stated
“A 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, part of Harvard University’s School of Public Health, found drivers using cell phones caused 1.5 million accidents annually resulting in 2,600 deaths and 570,000 injuries.
Researchers estimated banning cell phone use in vehicles would cost $43 billion a year in lost economic activity.”
[The only HCRA report on the website is is a 2003 study – Cohen, J.T. and Graham, J.D. A revised economic analysis of restrictions on the use of cell phones while driving. Risk Analysis. 2003; 23(1):5-17.]
A September 2003 report from NIOSH lists a range of driver hazards related to work activities and is worth downloading. Pages 51-555 deal specifically with phone use.
(If any reader knows of a literature review on this topic, please contact SafetyAtWorkBlog)
This workplace hazard has been around for so long that in the opinion of SafetyAtWorkBlog, when someone is driving a work vehicle 100% of their attention should be on the principal task at hand – driving.
Achieving this realistic aim can be helped by
Above all, employees must be informed of the risks involved with distraction, must be reassured that employers will support safe actions, and must realise the affect on other drivers and their families from their own mistakes.
On 9 July 2009 I wrote in SafetyAtWorkBlog
“The Fair Work Act has no relevance to occupational health and safety, so why mention this on SafetyAtWorkBlog?”
The Fair Work Act changes the negotiating and consultative structure of Australian workplaces stemming from changes in industrial relations law.
A book that came across my desk this morning suggests several other overlaps of OHS and IR in the new regime. Federation Press sent a copy of “Fair Work – The New Workplace Laws and the Work Choices Legacy“, a book edited by Anthony Forsyth and Andrew Stewart.
In Andrew Stewart’s chapter he talks of how the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission made several extreme rulings on the application of State OHS laws to federal employees. He states that the government of Kevin Rudd has progressed OHS legislative reforms considerably by the government has “not indicated any interest in taking over the field itself”. The reticence has seemed strange and I was one of those who tipped a greater role for Comcare as a body for national OHS oversight.
Stewart has interpreted the government’s suspension of Comcare licences for national workers compensation coverage as illustrating the government’s interest lies
“in streamlining workers compensation for multi-State employers, rather than imposing a national regime”.
Ron McCallum is an Australia labour academic who always demands attention. Stewart includes a particularly salient reference
“Ron McCallum, for example, has argued that labour laws that are centred around corporations are unlikely to retain a ‘wholesome’ balance between employers and employees. Ultimately, he suggests, such laws are likely to become ‘little more that a sub-set of corporations law because inevitably they will fasten upon the economic needs of corporations and their employees will be viewed as but one aspect of the productive process in our globalized economy.”
The path to fairness is likely to continue to be rocky even during the terms of a government that originated from the labour movement.
Jill Murray and Rosemary Owens write a chapter focusing on the Safety Net, a set of legislated minimum standards – National Employment Standards (NES). These standards are not “lines in the sand” and have purposely been given inherently flexibility. One of the issues discussed by Murray & Owens is maximum working hours.
This is particularly important to those of us who are trying to manage the issues of fatigue and impairment in workplaces. The authors state that it remains between the employer and employee to determine what hours, additional to the 38-hour working week, are “reasonable”. Some of the relevant safety factors in determining reasonableness are listed as
- “Occupational health and safety risks”
- “Personal circumstances, including family responsibilities”, as well as
- “Needs of the workplace or enterprise” and
- “any other relevant matter.”
Murray & Owens say that to determine reasonableness is almost impossible to negotiate between individuals because there is no priority allocated to each of the eleven criteria. The authors say
“… this kind of conflict is exactly what the provision must confront: a business might have urgent demands on production, yet an individual worker has to get home to cook tea for the family.”
Murray & Owens go on
“By placing the potential to expand working hours in the hands of the parties at the workplace, the NES, like WorkChoices, really mean that whoever holds the greater power (and, perhaps, knowledge of their rights) is likley to prevail, notwithstanding any calculation of reasonableness.”
Here is the opportunity for the union movement to generate additional members and in an industrial relations climate that allows fro greater access to employees. It is rare to find any individual who understands their own employment rights sufficiently to negotiate by and for themselves. The union movement could again become the “Friend of the Workers” by actually being the friend of workers and doing some solid footwork.
The Fair Work book is far more than this short article indicates. I only received the book this morning but am promising myself that I will read the rest.
As safety management broadens itself to cover psychosocial risks, it increasingly overlaps industrial relations, a workplace element that, with luck and a bit of work, could have been avoided by OHS professionals in the past. That is no longer the case and OHS professionals must understand how industrial relations changes will affect their own workplace and how they do their jobs. The Fair Work book is a great place to start.
In the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 July 2009, Kirsty Needham reported
“Total injuries rose by 2339 (2 per cent) to 142,542”
The media release from the Minister, Joe Tripodi on 15 July pointed out that the injury rate actually fell by 2%. An important point for the article and an error that has already been pointed out to Kirsty by others in New South Wales. Sadly, the error is understandable to those of us who dip into the statistical reports. (SafetyAtWorkBlog reported on the NSW stats previously)
However, this should not be case. Statistics should be supported by clear analyses that allow the layperson to understand, particularly, whether their government agencies’ efforts are providing positive results.
The alert to New South Wales businesses Kirsty refers to is the regular WorkCover News sent out to businesses in hard copy but also available for download.
Below is an excerpt from the article “Safety matters in hard times”
“Many businesses in NSW and across the country are feeling the effect of the global financial crisis. Some employers are cutting costs and workers want to know what that means for them. For the good of your pocket as well as your people, it’s important you uphold safety at work.
Hard times can hit in a number of ways, and nowhere is this more evident than in the workplace. Some businesses might cut their stationery budget; some might put projects or recruitment plans on hold; others might consider a complete restructure. These decisions can affect more than the bottom line.
One thing to consider is the health and safety of your workers. Pressure and change can cause stress and anxiety. If your workers are distracted they may make mistakes or put themselves at risk. If your workers feel insecure, they may not tell you about new hazards. If you take on jobs you don’t have the capacity to deliver, your equipment and people may not cope. Any of these factors could take a human toll.”
As the newsletter is one of the few that Australian OHS regulators publish in hard copy nowadays it is worth registering for. For non-Australian readers, the site is worth bookmarking if overseas.
The Australian media has been abuzz over the last couple of days on several issues concerning violence. Attention increases whenever there is video involved and the latest film of a bashing in Melbourne in a Hungry Jack’s store in the early hours of 13 July 2009 is getting a considerable run.
Most commentators are taking the bashing of 19-year-old Luke Adams as an example of “street violence”. SafetyAtWorkBlog believes that the fact that this event occurred between customers in a workplace, raises questions about the obligations of retail store owners towards health and safety.
The case of Luke Adams again illustrates the reality that surveillance cameras can assist in the apprehension of criminals but does little to reduce the harm to employees and customers. This seems to be contrary to the OHS principles in Australian OHS legislation.
SafetyAtWorkBlog would ask any retailers who choose to operate, particularly, during nighttime
SafetyAtWorkBlog knows of at least one fast food restaurant in Melbourne that removed its public toilets because of the number of drug overdoses that occurred in the cubicles. This store eventually closed its 24-hour store, partly, because of the unacceptable risk that developed.
The unfortunate linking of fast food restaurants with violent attacks is an issue of all-night trading as much as any other reason. It was just over two weeks ago that a fight in the grounds of a Hungry Jacks restaurant in suburban Melbourne was reported and wrapped into the current topic of supposedly racist-based attacks against Indian students.
The attacks are not limited to Melbourne though. A 19-year-old Korean student, Lee Joon–yub, was killed in Sydney in 2008 after being stabbed at a fast-food restaurant
The risk of occupational violence, as it is more traditionally understood, is increasing according to findings released on 16 July 2009 by the Australian Institute of Criminology. Its report, which also received some media attention from radio, finds that
“The incidence of service station armed robbery has steadily increased over the past decade. ….. This opportunistic targeting of service stations has been attributed to their extended opening hours, their sale of cigarettes and other exchangeable goods, their high volume of cash transactions and their isolation from other businesses. Widespread adoption of crime prevention measures by service stations, such as transfer trays, could help reduce their risk of being robbed…..”
The full report is worth reading closely from an OHS perspective as it identifies the characteristics of services stations (and maybe other all-night retail outlets) that are attractive to the opportunistic robber. We should not dismiss armed robberies as only involving monetary loss to retailers as the study showed that “one-third of armed robbery victims…were individual”.
The AIC report also states that
“…minimal staffing on night shift is seen to increase the risk of armed robbery victimization for service stations.”
This brings in all the OHS advice and research concerning working alone or in isolation. However there must be some sympathy for employers trying to recruit night shift workers for industries where violence is an increasing risk.
The mention of the hazard control measure of transfer trays is gratifying as it fits with a higher order of control measure in OHS parlance by providing an engineering control. However this needs to be backed up by specific training for employees on what to do when required to render assistance outside the enclosed booth.
The application of transfer trays may be valid for fast food stores at nighttime by only offering a drive-thru service and further reducing the risk of customer violence against employees.
Regardless of the physical harm from work tasks arising from working in retail, WorkSafe Victoria advises of four control measures for what it describes as the psychological system of stress, bullying and harassment:
- Your workplace culture and management should encourage open and effective communication.
- Develop, implement and enforce clear policies and procedures that address bullying, occupational violence, harassment and work pressure in consultation with workers (including young workers) and management.
- Where money is handled, put in place security measures to reduce the risk of occupational violence.
- Training and procedures should include all staff at risk, including any casual or on hire workers.