In July 2007, I interviewed Michael Licenblat on the issues of workplace stress for the SafetyAtWork podcast. Although the audio quality is not of a professional standard, it is worth revisiting Licenblat’s words as he discusses hours of work, particularly in light of the latest report by the Australian Medical Association on doctors and fatigue.
Tag: safety
John Darley’s delay on Work Health and Safety laws is unproductive
South Australia still has not passed the Work Health and Safety legislation that would bring it into line with most of the other States of Australia. A major obstacle to the Bill’s progress in the South Australian Parliament is the “dithering” of Independent MP John Darley.
On 28 June 2012, Darley spoke to the WHS Bill in the Legislative Council (page 1641). Darley reviews the status of WHS laws in Australian States, mentions Victoria’s flawed PricewaterhouseCoopers costings report but without expressing an opinion on it and acknowledges the support from major industrial and employer associations for the laws, but he seems very sympathetic to minority views on workplace safety.
Darley refers to the views of the Housing Industry (HIA) and Master Builders’ Associations (MBA) on “control”, two groups he acknowledges are “the most vocal opponents” of the Bill, and states
“Any person who does not have direct control of a risk should not have responsibility for eliminating or minimising the risk”.
Consider this position in relation to workplace psychosocial hazards. A bully would be breaching OHS laws by bullying another worker but those executives who establish the culture of a workplace that condones the bully’s actions would not be facing any penalty. This scenario seems to contradict a dominant safety principle that compliance and respect stems from the active example shown by an organisation’s leader. How will the legislative obligation for a “positive duty of care” in workplaces apply with in-direct control? Continue reading “John Darley’s delay on Work Health and Safety laws is unproductive”
Why all the arguing over a workplace bullying definition?
There have been many calls in Australia for a national definition of workplace bullying. Apparently the definition below that has applied in OHS legislation for over ten years in Victoria is insufficient:
“Repeated unreasonable behaviour directed toward a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety.”
The definition above was the one used in the first draft Code of Practice on Preventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying produced by Safe Work Australia in September 2011.
The definition was questioned by Moira Rayner, as a representative of the Law Institute of Victoria, at recent public hearings into workplace bullying. Researchers said that a lack of a national definition is a major reason that research in workplace bullying has been so thin.
A quick survey of workplace bullying definitions in Australia is listed below:
“Unreasonable and inappropriate workplace behaviour includes bullying, which comprises behaviour which Continue reading “Why all the arguing over a workplace bullying definition?”
Workplace bullying inquiry followed the script, mostly
The Melbourne public hearing in support of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Bullying has concluded after over an hour of personal impact statements that were confronting, saddening but, overall, defiant.
The hearing began more sedately and predictable. The employers’ association, ACCI, says that workplace bullying is a broad social issue that needs broad social control measure. In rough translation, “it’s not our problem”. The employers also see everything in terms of industrial relations so prevention of harm rarely features in recommendations.
The ACTU stressed that workplace bullying IS a workplace issue and therefore should be principally “managed” under occupational health and safety laws. Continue reading “Workplace bullying inquiry followed the script, mostly”
“Loose” workplace bullying statistics published
Workplace bullying policy matters are at their peak in Australia this week as public hearings occur at the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment inquiry into workplace bullying. Several experts on the prevention of workplace bullying will be appearing at these hearings but the topicality also allows others to release or promote data on workplace bullying.
Safety Consultants Australia (SCA) released a “blueprint” on Safety Hazard: Workplace Bullying in March 2012 that has been recirculated this week. The blueprint is a useful example of the care that needs to be taken when summarising data on workplace bullying.
SCA states, IN VERY BIG LETTERS, that the Productivity Commission estimated that
“Workplace Bullying costs Australian employers between $6 – $36 billion every year.”
SCA has released a flyer with the same information in EVEN BIGGER LETTERS however the Productivity Commission’s report Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Occupational Health & Safety (2010) states on page 279:
“Estimates of the prevalence and cost of psychosocial hazards vary considerably. For example, using international studies as a guide, estimates of the annual cost of workplace bullying to employers and the economy in Australia ranged from $6 billion to $36 billion (in 2000).” Continue reading ““Loose” workplace bullying statistics published”
Unanswered questions on Safety Institute activities
Earlier this year, the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) launched its OHS Body of Knowledge (BoK) project, an excellent collection of workplace safety information and research but one that has had restrictions imposed on it that seem contrary to its purpose.
SafetyAtWorkBlog has communicated repeatedly to the SIA about the BoK project and the, seemingly, related operation of the Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board (AOHSEAB) but, although the communications have been acknowledged, no responses have been received. Some of the questions go to the heart of the meaning of an OHS profession and body of knowledge but also to the relationships of various organisations under, or connected to, the SIA such as the Health and Safety Professionals Association (HaSPA) and AOHSEAB.
OHS Body of Knowledge
BoK contains over 30 articles about most of the major workplace safety issues of modern times. These have been produced by some of the most prominent OHS researchers in Australia. But it can only be read on a computer screen and the PDF files have a security level that forbids any cutting and pasting. Why would this important safety information be any different to guidance and data that OHS regulators provide for fair use? The SIA has never provided a reason for this peculiar approach to spreading OHS knowledge.
The SIA professes the organisation to be about the following:
“We are committed to creating a profession that can deliver the highest standards of OHS and we do this through the engagement of our individual members, corporate and strategic partners, governing bodies and key profession stakeholders.
Through the SIA, individuals have access to qualified timely advice into public policy and regulation, research and development to advance OHS knowledge and guidance. We have developed a body of knowledge to set health and safety standards, procedures and practices to be adopted on a national basis across the profession.”
SafetyAtWorkBlog posed the following questions to the appropriate contact person, Pam Pryor, Registrar, of the Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board in early May 2012. The AOHSEAB issued its first ever newsletter on 5 July 2012. (Hyperlinks have been added) Continue reading “Unanswered questions on Safety Institute activities”
Lessons for everyone in the legal action against France Telecom executives over suicides
In 2009-10, SafetyAtWorkBlog followed the unfolding and tragic story of the spate of suicides at France Telecome that were directly related to the change of work practices and organisational policies instigated after privatisation. SafetyAtWorkBlog stated that the suicides could be considered to be a case study of poor personnel management and, in more recent parlance, a failure of safety leadership. This month French authorities have begun investigating France Telecom executives.
According to an AFP report in early July 2012:
“Louis-Pierre Wenes was placed under investigation on Thursday, a day after former France Telecom chief Didier Lombard, for workplace harassment, his lawyer Frederique Beaulieu said.”
At the time of the suicides Wenes was Deputy CEO and Lombard was CEO.
Interestingly and curiously, workplace bullying is not a term used in the France Telecome situation, although it may have met the criteria that Australia applies. Continue reading “Lessons for everyone in the legal action against France Telecom executives over suicides”