union – Page 23 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

An OHS look at the Fair Work book

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.

NES

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.

Kevin Jones

“Union safety”?

Reading an article about CFMEU organiser, Joe McDonald, today illustrates an important differentiation to be kept in mind. A unionist’s benchmark for safety compliance may differ from that of the employer, regardless of the fact that the employer has the major legislative obligation to establish a “safe and healthy work environment”.

Joe McDonald pledges to keep his members safe. A spokesperson for the construction company said

“…there were some safety issues at the site but said they were being addressed when the union walked out.”

How does walking away from OHS consultation improve safety?

The cause of the confusion on “safety” comes from the weakening of prescriptive legislation and codes to accommodate operating costs, and in the increase of the “reasonably practicable” test.

The union movement in New South Wales had the most extreme level of OHS regulation in Australia. It was hated by the business sector and has been weakened by the government as a result of federal pressures and aims but, the fact that New South Wales has achieved a 2% reduction in the injury incident rate, may add weight to the unions’ desire to retain the legislation.

There is a fundamental dichotomy of regulatory and operational approaches in OHS management in Australia currently that the harmonised OHS system may only exacerbate. It is now up to the Safe Work Australia boffins to keep an open mind in harmonisation negotiations but to also remained focused on the aim of any OHS legislation which is to keep people safe.

Kevin Jones

New Worker Memorial

On 13 July 2009, Tasmania’s Minister for Workplace Relation Lisa Singh braved

Lisa Singh MP, Minister for Workplace Relations

the elements to launch the Tasmanian Workers Commemorative Park in Launceston. The park is a work in progress and the local council is looking for support in the memorial’s completion.

According to the Minister’s media release, the Park was created to honour those who have died in the workplace.

“A memorial dedicated to those who lost their lives at work is an important way of reminding the community that workplaces can be dangerous places,” Ms Singh said. “The cost to the community can be calculated in dollar terms, but it is the social cost that is incalculable. How can anyone even imagine the grief felt by family and friends when a loved one is killed at work?”

It is not unreasonable to hope that every Workplace Relations Minister has talked with victims of workplace fatalities and illnesses and could “imagine the grief”. The Tasmanian government has pledged $A5,000 to the project.

Simon Cocker, Secretary of Unions Tas, told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Tasmanian union movement is supportive of all memorials to injured workers and hoes that this is the first of a series of memorials in each of the major Tasmanian cities. The union movement is discussing how much financial support they can provide the memorial.

A media release from the Launceston City Council says:

Elizabeth Gardens, on the corner of Invermay Road and Forster Street, was chosen as the most appropriate site as it provides a peaceful and uncluttered spot suitable for contemplation and it has strong connections with past work places of Invermay. Its close proximity to the popular Aurora Stadium also gives the site state prominence.

The path through Elizabeth Gardens will be sealed and edged with bricks and an arbour will be constructed along the path, using materials selected for their relevance to a wide range of employment sectors.

The design includes a seating area that will be surrounded by ripples. The ripples will be made from clay bricks that represent the individuals who have died.

Cocker says that he hopes the memorial project (pictured below) can be completed in time for the International Workers Memorial Day on 28 April 2010.

Kevin Jones

Tas Workers Comemorative Park plan for broch nospon small

It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it

One of my colleagues has described her role in a corporation as an “irritant”. She is responsible for quality, environment, risk and OHS – all of those required business elements that companies will avoid or ignore if they could. Her company acknowledges that these elements are necessary and values her role and efforts.

OHS professionals could benefit from realising that in most circumstances, they are not welcome, or rather, their advice is not welcome. OHS is a bitter pill for many companies. But handled well, explained and discussed, OHS can be a substantial agent for positive change.

Sadly, one construction industry unionist in Australia is doing more harm than good. Joe McDonlad is an experienced unionist who is undoubtedly committed to the safety of his members in Western Australia’s construction industry. However, he does not respect the law or due process.

This week, Joe McDonald was fined $10,000 by a Perth Magistrate, Jeremy Packington, for unlawfully entering three building sites in 2007. McDonald’s actions generated considerable political discussion at the time, mainly because his actions occurred during an election campaign.

Safety improvements can be achieved without confrontation and insults. A major OHS principle is consultation. McDonald is a safety-focused trade unionist who may succeed in his aims to improve safety for his members. But the manner in which he conducts his services is causing widespread damage to the cause of OHS in the general community, employers’ perceptions of OHS and the trade union movement in general.

Sometimes the bigger picture is important.

An audio report and a video report of Joe’s action on the construction site and his thoughts on safety are available online.

Kevin Jones

The need for a safety philosopher

It is very hard to be an OHS professional and not feel like one is part of the “nanny state” approach to personal choice. There is a fundamental disconnection between the responsibilities on business for a safe workplace and the responsibilities on an individual to make themselves safe at work.

When the work processes are seen as mechanistic, where workers are part of that process, safety management is easier. Hazards are known because the work process and environment are fixed and have no variation. The employer’s area of responsibility is clear and can be said to be from the engineering/production perspective.

But at different points in history, the spotlight of humanism becomes bright enough that the workers get attention. Safety management becomes complex because humanity is acknowledged in the work processes; one must consult, talk, listen and engage with the worker who was, previously, an element of the production process.

This is the Manicheism of safety management – the machine or the human.

This rumination occurred in response to an article reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on the union representing Sydney bus drivers “asking the New South Wales Government to pay for personal trainers and Weight Watchers programs.”

The union’s bus secretary, Raul Boanza, says, according to the ABC report,

“the union wants the Government to formalise an existing 50 per cent Weight Watchers subsidy by including the provision in enterprise agreements” and
“it will also seek gym memberships or personal trainers on a case-by-case basis on the advice of a medical specialist.”

Apparently

“the Rail, Tram and Bus Union says drivers must pass strict medical standards every two years to keep their licences”.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted the union this afternoon and were advised that the person who raised the issue initially “is making no further comment on the matter.”

This is a shame as one of the first questions would have been, “should an employee be held responsible for making sure they are fit for work?”

Let’s indulge in some late-Friday afternoon silliness. If a widget in a mechanical process is faulty, it is fixed or replaced. In a mechanistic perspective, if a worker is too fat to undertake the tasks they have performed previously they should be fixed or replaced. This seems to match the position of Raul Boanza.

But if the widget had a consciousness and the means and responsibility to maintain their own suitability for work, should that widget be fixed or replaced? This seems to be what each worker in any workplace needs to regularly ask themselves.

As mentioned above these two differing perspectives reflect our society’s (internal) debate on personal responsibility to one’s self and one’s society.

The leading safety academic in Australia is a sociologist. Perhaps we are in need of a safety philosopher or at least a safety profession that considers safety in its social and personal contexts, that discusses, debates and progresses, rather than worrying about the latest corporate logo. Perhaps we just need people to take responsibility for their own actions and be accountable for their own errors.

Kevin Jones

Union abuse of workplace safety

The fragility of Australia’s agreement for OHS harmonisation is illustrated in an article by Michael Stutchbury of The Australian. He mentions the potential domino effect resulting from the West Australian Treasurer’s desire to keep his options open. New South Wales and Queensland see that a (politically unpalatable) out is possible.

The freshest information in his article was that the CEO of the Business Council of Australia (BCA), Katie Lahey, has described OHS harmonisation as “linchpin” in the government’s push for a seamless national business economy, according to Stutchbury. This perspective is one that should be watched closely as the BCA is not renowned for its OHS innovation or advice.

Stutchbury misinterprets the pledge by the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)

“to make safety the key to their battle against the ABCC’s powers”.

The union is applying safety to their industrial relations battle with the ABCC because their initial attack failed. The Government has watered down the ABCC’s powers but the ABCC will continue to exist. Indeed the “lawlessness” of the unions has caused the Government to continue with regulatory oversight of the construction industry beyond the ABCC. The unions are flogging a dead horse (albeit for excellent ideological reasons) and, as a result, are reinforcing the political and community perspectives of union “thuggery”.

The ABCC action against unions has not been on the basis of health and safety, as far as SafetyAtWorkBlog is aware. It has been on the issue of union conduct, the way the union progresses on OHS matters. The ABCC concerns stem from the process itself and not the origin of the process.

The Australian union movement needs to realise that it is its heavy-handedness on industrial relations that is impeding its progress on several fronts. It is not getting the ear of what traditionally has been a sympathetic political party and it is failing to gain any ground in the community because of its brash conduct. As a result it is not attracting new members.

It is also disappointing that health and safety is trotted out as a Plan B. This has happened repeatedly and has resulted in the tactic being seen as minimally effective. The union movement needs to see that OHS is a core value of union membership. Workers can be confident that an OHS issue brought to management with the union’s support will get an audience, and is more likely to get fixed.

The unions will gain new members by emphasising the positive and direct benefits of union membership. A possible campaign start could be

“You will be safer at work with a union”.

There is a place for ideological protest. The point needs to be made that the powers of ABCC are inappropriate. But the ABCC was introduced in response to union arrogance and excessive testosterone. A change of culture in the union movement some time ago would have allowed it to focus on the future of its members rather than continue with its outdated and unpopular belligerence.

Kevin Jones

Worker health continues to get government support

Just because Victoria’s WorkHealth program is not functioning anywhere near its initial intention, it does not mean that the issue of workers’ poor health is being ignored. In mid-June 2009, Australia’s federal government announced a targeted program called the Tradies Tune-Up.

The funding for this program is very modest in comparison with WorkHealth’s proposed riches. According to a media statement, the government is allocating $A219,500 to “monitor and check on the health of building and construction workers.” This sector was chosen because statistics show

“…that men working in manual occupations, like construction, have higher mortality rates, disability and serious chronic disease than other professions. Statistically, they are also at greater risk of self-harm and suicide.”

This program has a greater opportunity for success as it is coordinated through OzHelp Foundation, a partnership between the ACT branches of the Master Builders Association and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The construction unions, to the knowledge of SafetyAtWorkBlog, have always had strong mental health and wellbeing support programs, often run through chaplaincies, a much neglected form of employee assistance program.

As has occurred elsewhere in Australian workplace services, the program will operate with the support of a mobile assessment vans. The program will have

“a specially equipped van and accompanying health staff including a registered nurse will set-up ‘pit-stops’ at construction and building sites testing workers in 20 minute sessions on their levels of cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and waist size.”

The government has also committed to develop a National Men’s Health Policy to be finalised later this year.

Health assessment programs that go to the workplace and, importantly, have the support of the union movement have a good chance of success but that success is not just the number of visits. They must have tangible health improvements to the workers.

Also assessments are not enough to simply inform someone they are fat and unhealthy. There must be a support program for health improvement and the reduction of unhealthy distractions.

OzHelp should not be seen as a Rudd government initiative or only something that can thrive under a sympathetic Labour government. The foundation has existed for almost five years as can be seen by this media statement.

Such programs also must operate with specific performance benchmarks. Currently there is no information available about program benchmarks or what timeline is being applied to the program. As the program is receiving government funding, it may be necessary to await for department annual reports, if this type of program is reported at all.

Kevin Jones

Tag: union

An OHS look at the Fair Work book

NES

Like this:

“Union safety”?

Like this:

New Worker Memorial

Like this:

It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it

Like this:

The need for a safety philosopher

Like this:

Union abuse of workplace safety

Like this:

Worker health continues to get government support

Like this:

NES

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: