work/life – Page 6 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Work/life balance needs to grow into sustainability

Just as government is reigning in the excesses of the financial sector over the last decade or so, there is a strong movement to pull back on the workload excesses. Some of this is through the work/life balance movement.

In terms of occupational health and safety, this movement has a strong base that is reflected in a lot of OHS legislation where individual employees have a responsibility to ensure they are working safely and not putting themselves at risk. This can be a very difficult obligation when one is working in an organisation that does not grant safety or mental health or its social obligations much weight.

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

What would you do if a work colleague strips, screams, acts “like a child having a tantrum”, starts to sing and then jumps out of a window to her death? That is the situation that was faced by staff at the Sydney office of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in December 2005.

Only days earlier, 34-year-old Rebekah Lawrence, had participated in a self-development course called “The Turning Point” conducted by Zoeros P/L trading as People KnowHow. The course, according to one media report, the course included a session called “The Inner Child”

“in which those taking part were encouraged to develop a dialogue between their child and adult selves.”

Lawrence’s actions just before her death mirrored some of the course teaching.

PeopleKnowHow’s website has closed down with an announcement that all of its courses are under review. Other organisations that provide similar courses are running for cover. Transformational Learning Australia has said it

“…no longer has a professional relationship, affiliation or any other connection with People Knowhow.” [emphasis added]

TLA also says any relationship ended in 2005. That the company has felt it necessary to make a media statement about the end of the relationship shows the extent of the effect of Rebekah Lawrence’s death on this industry sector.

TLA goes on to say that

Our organisation does not accept participants who have a recent history of chronic mental illness, participants under the care of a treating professional who have not obtained that professional’s consent to participate, or people who demonstrate a propensity towards psychological fragility or a significant lack of cohesion during the introductory sessions of the program.”

The New South Wales Coroner found that in the absence of any history of psychosis in Rebekah Lawrence that,

The evidence is overwhelming that the act of stepping out of a window to her death was the tragic culmination of a developing psychosis that had its origins in a self-development course known as ‘The Turning Point’ conducted by Zoeros Pty. Ltd, trading under the name of ‘People Know-How” on the 14, 16, 17 and 18 December 2005.

The full coronial findings are difficult to read due to the personal details of Lawrence’s life, her relationship with her husband David and the general picture of her personality that comes through. An upsetting and enlightening interview with David Booth is available online from earlier in the investigation process.

The findings also provide considerable detail to the components of the course that Lawrence undertook. There is a greater level of detail than would be expected to be known by someone signing up for such a course and this is where the lessons can be learnt for the OHS professional and safety manager.

It has become common in many corporations who are trying to improve or introduce a positive workplace culture, to supplement their own efforts with “self-help” or “self-awareness” courses. Lawrence’s death has highlighted the lack of regulation or accountability in some sectors of this industry. This also highlights the need for people managers to thoroughly investigate such courses to ensure that good intentions are not likely to increase the risk of harm or damage to the employees who participate.

An audio report on the Coroner’s findings is available online.

Counselling Services

Many workplaces often provide access to counselling services through schemes such as Employment Assistance Programs. The Coroner’s recommendations have some direct bearing on the issue of “counsellors”.

“The Executive Director of the Australian Psychological Society, Professor Lynne Littlefield pointed out that there are no legal restrictions in Australia for practising under the title ‘psychotherapist’ or under the title ‘counsellor’ and therefore no public safeguards against untrained or incompetent practitioners in this field.

Professor Littlefield pointed out that although there were many skilled counsellors and psychotherapists, there were also many whose competence is questionable and without any regulating mechanisms to stipulate the required training and levels of competence, there was no way of protecting the public from these poorly trained practitioners.”

Rebekah Lawrence’s death is receiving considerable media coverage in Australia at the moment and the New South Wales Government is carefully considering the Coroner’s recommendations concerning the regulation of some areas of the self-development industry. Employers and safety professionals are going to have a very different set of criteria shortly from which such workplace-related courses need to be evaluated.

One media report has indicated the start of the ramifications of this unfortunate death:

“The NSW Health Minister, Carmel Tebbutt, said she had asked her department for ”urgent advice” on the case and would consider the coroner’s recommendations. A code of conduct for counsellors and psychologists had already been implemented and the Health Care Complaints Commission now monitored practitioners.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists called for closer monitoring and accountability of self-help and psychotherapeutic courses.”

Kevin Jones

Australia’s Go Home on Time Day

November 26 2009 was Go Home On Time Day in Australia. The intention of this day, organised by The Australia Institute, was to highlight the difficulty many workers face in a achieving this seemingly simple task. The Australia Institute’s expresses the aims this way:

The typical full-time employee is working 70 minutes of unpaid overtime a day, which equates to 33 eight-hour days per year, or six and a half standard working weeks.

Across the workforce, the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime worked per year is a $72 billion gift to employers and means that 6% of our economy depends on free labour.

Converting unpaid overtime into full time jobs would create 1.1 million new jobs

Unpaid overtime harms our health, our personal relationships, our communities and our workplaces

The work/life balance advocates would say not doing unpaid overtime as a regular part of the job is an important balancing technique.

The Australia Institute has provided SafetyAtWorkBlog with some statistics from the special day’s 20,000 registered participants which may illustrate some of the difficulties of achieving that work/life balance.

Over 55% of registered participants managed to leave work at the contracted time on 26 November 2009. Of those who could not, almost 70% said they could not because they “had too much work to do”.

Of those who went home on time, these were the most common activities:

Spent time with family/played with kids
Exercised/went to the gym
Household jobs/chores
Caught up with friends
Walked the dog

Those who admitted to working unpaid overtime (1836) gave the following reasons

To get the work done	86.5%
Because my boss/employer expects it	28.8%
To help colleagues	23.1%
To ensure my job is safe/secure	21.6%
To demonstrate how hard I work	14.2%
Because everyone else does it	13.6%

There seems to be only one genuinely positive and collegiate reason, to help colleagues. The others indicate job and personal insecurity, unreasonable workloads or bad time management on behalf of employees and employers.

The statistics are of mostly curiosity value but are further indications of the social structural problems that contribute to increased work mental health risks. Of those who signed up but could not get away from work, a couple of reasons given were

Boss knew I was trying to go home on time and loaded me up.
Management laughed.
My Boss said I was not to say the words out loud.

These days are intended to raise awareness of specific issues in society and Go Home On Time Day is a worthwhile addition but as with Asbestos Awareness Week, at some point awareness must move to action.

Kevin Jones

Annual holidays get a TV makeover

Regardless of concerns over the veracity of data, Tourism Australia’s “No Leave, No Life” campaign is continuing to develop its media presence.

The Seven Network announced this week that “No Leave, No Life” will form the basis of a television program to be broadcast from 5 December 2009. As is the nature of TV shows, when a new successful format is found, it can travel around the world. So, be warned.

The rationale of the “No Leave, No Life” tourism campaign is that employees hold on to their annual leave entitlements and amass many weeks’ leave. The employer groups have supported this campaign, principally, because this reduces the salary reserves each company must carry to cover the entitlements.Individually, employees can convince themselves that they are indispensable. The risk, from the workplace safety perspective, is that the individual is not accessing the mental health and stress relief that can come from being away from a workplace for several weeks.

Having no break from work mode can unbalance one’s life and put considerable strain on personal and family relationships. Just like adequate sleep can have productivity benefits, so can taking annual leave on a regular basis

There is also the organisational benefit that can come from breaking the routine. Just as individuals may come to believe they are indispensable, so an organisation can come to rely too heavily on individuals. A healthy corporate system should be able to cope with the absence of any staff member or executive for a short period of time (the period of annual leave).

Business continuity would dictate that a business can continue without key people permanently. Coping without these people for a short period each year can be considered a trial run of continuity.

In relation to the new television program the Seven Network advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that each episode is structured around the removal of a worker who has a large amount of annual leave from their workplace for a holiday within Australia (hence the Tourism Australia support). The viewer appeal, other than watching someone else have a good time, is that a comedian is used to fill the role of the holidaying staff members. The show is likely to illustrate several points – no one is indispensable, a regular holiday is an important individual activity, and, although not indispensable, the employee and their effort is valued by the organisation.

The show will follow people from these occupations:

a paediatric nurse in a cardiac ward;
a sales manager in a brewery
an ambulance paramedic; and
a charity events manager.

The OHS role and benefits of regular leave are not as overt in the program as they could be but that is not he purpose of the program. It is clearly a program that would not have existed without the Tourism Australia campaign. It has been designed to encourage Australians to take holidays and to holiday within Australia.

It is hoped that if and when people return to work refreshed they may realise how important regular leave is to their own wellbeing and mental health but having stress management or career burnout as a motivation for the employees themselves to take leave would have been more instructional.

Of course, it should be pointed out that businesses are doing themselves no good by allowing for the accumulation of excessive leave in the first place. In fact, it could be argued that by not enforcing the taking of leave the companies are increasing the stress of their employees and contributing to the social dysfunction that can result from such a work.life imbalance.

Kevin Jones

Unpaid overtime is the new danger money

In Australia there is increasing pressure to work more hours than what one is paid for. Many different organisations use this fact to push for various improved benefits, in many circumstances the statistics are used in support of wage improvements.

But working beyond contracted hours will certainly affect one’s work/life balance as there are only so many hours in the day and if work dominates one’s life, family time or rest will be sacrificed. The imbalance leads to a range of negative psychological and social actions. An article in Wikipedia on working time summarises this.

“In contrast, a work week that is too long will result in more material goods at the cost of stress-related health problems as well as a “drought of leisure.” Furthermore, children are likely to receive less attention from busy parents, and childrearing is likely to be subjectively worse. The exact ways in which long work weeks affect culture, public health, and education are debated.”

Australia has yet to have the debate on the matter of working hours that has been seen in Europe and England but the issue exists very much in Australia, although it has yet to gain any traction.

According to a media report by the Australian Council of Trade Unions a new research report by the Australia Institute

“… found that each year, the average full-time Australian worker does 266.6 hours of unpaid overtime, or an extra six-and-a-half working weeks…. The think tank estimates that through unpaid overtime, workers are forgoing a total of $72.2 billion in wages or 6% of GDP.”

The Australian Institute report found the following

Forty-five per cent of all Australian workers, and more than half of all full-time employees, work more hours than they are paid for during a typical workday.

Unpaid overtime is more common among people who work a ‘standard’ business workday (that is, not shift work) and among white-collar workers.

Workplace culture is a dominant contributing factor, with 44 per cent of people who work unpaid overtime saying that it is ‘compulsory’ or ‘expected’ and another 43 per cent saying that it is ‘not expected, but also not discouraged’.

Across the workforce, the average employee works 49 minutes unpaid during a typical workday.

Full-time employees work 70 minutes of unpaid overtime on average, while parttime employees work 23 minutes.

Men work more unpaid overtime than women (63 minutes versus 36 minutes a day). Men with young children work a great deal more than women with young children (71 minutes compared with 30 minutes).

Unpaid overtime increases with income: people in low-income households work an average of 28 minutes of unpaid overtime a day compared with 61 minutes for people in high-income households.

When asked what would happen if they didn’t work unpaid overtime, most say that ‘the work wouldn’t get done’, suggesting that the demands placed on employees are too much for many people.

A majority of survey respondents who work additional hours said that if they didn’t work overtime they would spend more time with family, and many said that they would do more exercise.

The report clearly states that allowing “unpaid overtime” has a strong cost in social and individual health but there is an OHS perspective that over gets overlooked due to public health and industrial relations dominating the issue.

In a media statement from October 2009, as an example, Deloittes quoted some scientists, in support of a anti-sleep device, on statistics that have been bandied around for some time:

“…scientists equate fatigue to blood-alcohol levels: if a person has been awake for 18 hours, it’s the equivalent of having a .05 level of alcohol in their body; if they have been awake for 21 hours, it’s equivalent to a.08 level.”

There are several further examples on negative health impacts in the Australia Institute report.

It can be strongly argued that by allowing, or expecting, “unpaid overtime”, employers may be encouraging workers to travel home while impaired and that employers are creating a work/life imbalance by requiring “unpaid overtime”. Certainly it could be argued that even during unpaid overtime, the cognitive function of the employee is less than expected, or even have the worker unfit for work.

Arguing about unpaid overtime clearly makes the debate one of money not safety or wellness or the social contract, and this is the argument’s inherent weakness.

Arguing for compensation for “unpaid overtime” is arguing for “danger money” – how much money will a worker accept in order to keep working into the unhealthy and dangerous hours beyond their regular contracted hours? This type of argument disappeared almost twenty years ago in Australia when the Australian awards system was reformed to remove allowances in relation to working at heights, picking up roadkill, or working in excessive heat. It was agreed that “danger money” was inappropriate and that OHS principles demanded the risks involved with these tasks be reduced rather than “paying workers” to place themselves at risk.

ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence, in his media statement in support of Go Home on Time Day, and The Australia Institute in its media statement on its report both underplay a major point in the debate on working hours when they argue in economic terms. Lawrence says

“If the work demands are too much to complete in a normal working day, then employees should be paid for their extra hours, or their employer must hire more staff.”

The institute mentions wellness in passing but emphasises in its media release

“..the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime worked per year is a $72 billion gift to employers and means that 6% of our economy depends on free labour.”

Employing more staff is preferable but removing the culture of unpaid overtime is far more important. Arguing on the basis of economics, ie “being paid for their extra hours”, may expose the worker to greater risk of injury or illness at the workplace or on the way home. Quality of life, work/life balance and personal health and safety are stronger arguments for “going home on time”, arguments supported by The Australia Institute and the Australian Greens.

Kevin Jones

Managing stress the Wall Street Journal way

When a financial newspaper or website posts an article about workplace safety, it is worth reading. The fact of such an article does not mean, though, that safety management is the focus of the story.

A 17 November 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal, ” Workers Denied Company Help Due to Stress-Related Complaints” understandably reports on new workplace stress statistics in a way attractive to its readers. Sadly it reports on “how can the problem be managed?” rather than the next step that OHS professionals should always take, “how can this problem be eliminated?”

The paragraph that clearly illustrates this myopia is

“Companies are now faced with critical decisions over how to tackle stress. The first step, according to Dr. Wright, is to provide workers with access to a dedicated help line service. “Picnics, parties … those things are nice to have when the times are good, but it is the fundamental things – like making sure your role fits your skills and having the support of your manager – that matters the most now.”

A help line as a first step? The article is full of statistics that illustrate the reality of the hazards. Talking to a sympathetic counselor throws the responsibility (blame?) onto the individual and away from the organisation.

Earlier in the article Aviva’s Dr Wright said that workers are

“…being pushed to work harder, longer hours, in roles they are often not trained for…”

He acknowledges that workload and excessive hours is a contributory factor but makes no recommendations for changing these hazards. Dr Wright accepts the traditional wisdom that harsh economic times leads to these pressures and individuals must cope, with some assistance from the employer.

It is probably unfair to expect the Wall Street Journal to publish an article that proposes fundamental change to the corporate order on the basis of valuing the mental health of employees. But OHS professionals and advocates, those speaking from a position of independence, must keep reminding business, and (sadly) some OHS regulators, that long-term sustainability will only come from valuing the workforce as human beings and not as cogs in the race for executive performance bonuses.

Kevin Jones

Below is a list of links to some of the reports mentioned in the WSJ article.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Aviva UK Health of the Workplace 2009 (report not found)

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

The meaning of work

A weekly radio program broadcast on Australian community radio station 3CR, Stick Together, broadcast a lecture by Barbara Pocock on the meaning of work.

Barbara Pocock is a leading workplace researcher and remains the voice on work/life balance. She is always worth reading and listening to. It is impossible to management workplace safety without continuing to learn what work is and how people look at work. A podcast of the Stick Together program is available for download.

Pocock says that many of the perspectives on work are negative and is therefore approached as a chore. She talks about how laborious jobs have declined in relation to technology and client demand and discusses

“efficacy, identity, contribution, vocation

social connection

opportunity to learn

positive spillover from work”

Kevin Jones

Tag: work/life

Work/life balance needs to grow into sustainability

Like this:

Self development course contributes to a workplace suicide

Counselling Services

Like this:

Australia’s Go Home on Time Day

Like this:

Annual holidays get a TV makeover

Like this:

Unpaid overtime is the new danger money

Like this:

Managing stress the Wall Street Journal way

Like this:

The meaning of work

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Counselling Services

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: