“Certain occupational exposures appear to increase the risk of developing postmenopausal breast cancer”, is a conclusion reached by Canadian researchers and released in April 2010 edition of the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.

The researchers acknowledged that “some findings might be due to chance or to undetected bias some findings might be due to chance or to undetected bias”, but there is enough evidence to generate concern in occupational sectors and, often, the media shows increased interest in breast cancer research.

Several Australian scientists have advised caution on interpreting the research findings.   Professor Bernard Stewart, Scientific Advisor to Cancer Council Australia, is well aware of the media interest in breast cancer risks,  has said

“This study contributes to, but does not settle, the issue of whether occupational exposure to solvents causes breast cancer.  For example, we know particular workplace exposures have been proven to cause lung, skin and bladder cancer, however any such causation of breast cancer remains in question.  Such investigations are can also be limited by the relatively low range of risk.

While smoking increases lung cancer risk by more than 20-fold, this study suggests breast cancer risk ranges from zero up to a two-fold increase following solvent exposure.  The findings should prompt action, but not anxiety. Implications that breast cancer risk may be greater following early-life exposure warrant follow-up research.

As things stand, there is no clear evidence that reducing solvent exposure can prevent breast cancer.  However, for a range of other health reasons, employers should aim to minimise solvent inhalation in the workplace.”

Professor Chris Winder of the University of New South Wales is more critical of the research

“Malignant breast cancer is unfortunately a common cancer in women, and the range of possible risk factors is large, including occupation.   This new study is useful because it suggests some workplace risk factors, such as exposure to some plastics and polyaromatic hydrocarbons as being associated with breast cancer.   But these results need careful evaluation, as the research methods are imprecise and exposure assessment inexact.  More work is needed to confirm these findings.”

Professor Stewart’s comments reinforce the need for workplaces to  undertake detailed risk assessments if hazardous substances are a required element of the work processes.  Studies that illustrate new consequences for substances that we already know are harmful confirm the need for an appropriate safety management system and illustrate the wisdom of eliminating hazardous substances.

Kevin Jones

A scientific symposium held in Canada in April 2010 has raised some serious concerns about the health impacts of shift work.  Some of the evidence has existed for a while but collecting it all together makes one wonder how companies can justify shift work in the face of such high risks to workers’ health.

From the evidence presented at the symposium, workers will be tired at work when working shift work and are more likely to be injured than those on day shift.  Some workers have an increased risk of breast cancer.  Foetal growth in some pregnant women may be impeded.  Circadian disruption may encourage the growth of tumours and an international agency is convinced sufficiently of the risks to determine that shift work itself is probably carcinogenic.

The Occupational Cancer Research Centre and the Institute for Work & Health should be applauded for making the evidence presented at the symposium publicly accessible.  Below are the key risk findings from the symposium:

• “Shift work can result in sleep disruption and sleep deprivation, and in sleepiness/fatigue at work.
• Night shift work has been associated with an increase in breast cancer in women who work rotating shifts for longer durations (i.e. 30-plus years).
• Evidence from animal studies supports the link between circadian disruption (in the form of suppressed melatonin production) and the growth of tumours.
• In 2007, based on limited evidence from human studies and sufficient evidence from animal experiments, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified “shift work that involves circadian disruption” (i.e. night shift work) as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A).
• There is strong evidence that night, evening, rotating and irregular shifts are associated with an elevated risk of workplace injuries.
• There is evidence that shift work has a moderate negative effect on fetal growth in pregnant women.”

Abstracts and PowerPoints for each of the symposium presentations are available and they deserve to be read, kept and considered closely. For instance, one research study on injuries states:

“Estimates of the population attributable fraction indicate that 6-7% of workplace injuries can be attributed to the higher risk of injury associated with shift work schedules. On the basis of this estimate, an excess of 13,000 compensated injuries (lost-time and no lost-time) to men and 20,000 compensated injuries to women in Ontario can be annually attributed to the higher risk of injury associated with shift work schedules.”

Below are the findings that do not relate directly to shift work health risks:

“Shift work is common. About one-quarter of the workforce in North America and Europe is engaged in shift work requiring working at night. In Canada, 11 per cent of workers work rotating shifts, six per cent work regular evening shifts and two per cent work regular night shifts.

A number of biological mechanisms to explain the association between light at night and cancer risk are being explored.  The key ones are the suppression of the normal night-time production of melatonin and the disruption of the circadian gene function.

There is not enough high quality evidence to reach firm conclusions on the influence of shift work on heart disease.”

Given the number of risks, the list of possible control measures is thin.  This may be due to research into problems rather than controls but it just may be that we are reaching a point where the risks of working night shift outweigh the benefits of production.  Could shift work become the classic example where safety is really sacrificed to the benefit of profit?

Kevin Jones

The May 2010 edition of the  Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine includes an important report about the increase of heart disease risk in young women.  There is often a lot of reports into the cardiovascular health of men so this report is very useful.

The basic findings of the report are:

“Nurses who indicated that their work pressures were a little too high were 25% more likely to have ischaemic heart disease as those who said their work pressures were manageable and appropriate.

But those who felt work pressures were much too high were almost 50% more likely to have ischaemic heart disease. After taking account of risk factors for heart disease, such as smoking and lifestyle, the risk fell to 35%, but still remained significant.”

It should be said that the report was from a Danish study of nurses and although the media statement says this relates to the heart risks of young women, the age range of the study sample was 45 to 60.  The study quizzed the nurses about work pressure and personal issues in 1993, at the beginning of the study, and their health was followed through medical records for the next 15 years.

The report itself states:

“In this study we find that work pressure that is too high is a significant risk factor for IHD [ischaemic heart disease] in younger female employees (<51 years of age).  The results should be taken into account in the planning of primary prevention.”

Many readers may be pleased to be described as “young” through to 51 but, if any of the mainstream media cover these findings, the shorthand reference to “young” rather than “younger” may confuse the relevance of the findings.

The study reference is “Psychosocial work environment and risk of ischaemic heart disease in women: the Danish Nurse Cohort Study” Occup Environ Med 2010; 67: 318-22.

Kevin Jones

In July 2010, Melbourne Australia is hosting the 2010 conference of the International Congress of Applied Psychology.  What was an OHS consultant at this conference?  The question should be why wasn’t OHS consultants at this conference?

This conference is not about workplace safety, per se.  It is about how people think and communicate.  It provides research (some would say evidence), often about how people relate to each other at work.  The exciting content of this ICAP Conference makes the Safety In Action Conference look like a history lesson.

The conference has made the full program and the speaker abstracts online, for free.  Both are big PDF files but are excellent resources for those OHS professionals looking for the latest research into bullying, driver safety, health & wellbeing, organisational behaviour, leadership, fatigue, stress and other issues.

The safety-related speakers include topics like this random sample:

• Reappraising the transactional model of driver stress and fatigue
• Driver behaviour theory: ninety years of psychological space in traffic
• Emotional intelligence: From research to application
• Psychological responses to disasters: An empirically informed approach to helping the survivors of trauma effectively and safely, in the field and in the clinic
• Fatigue and performance effects: What do we know and what do we need to know?
• How organizations create stress and respond to the consequences of stress
• Development of a psychological risk assessment tool to aid compliance with health and safety legislation: The People at Work Project
• The role of health and well-being in safety performance

The accompanying trade show was populated by a lot of academic bookshops but the conference discounts were bargains.  Of the three books purchased, the most fascinating is “Insidious Workplace Behaviour” by Jerald Greenberg.  In providing the definition of IWB as the book calls it, the author lists five characteristics:

• Intentionally harmful
• Legal
• Low-level severity
• Repetitive
• Individually and organisationally targeted

IWB is “subtle and stealthy behavior that cumulatively chips away at a worker’s dignity” (p.4)  This concept deserves enormous attention and may provide a new approach to the early signs, the clues to a toxic workplace.

A fascinating conference feature was the Brief Oral Presentations where speakers have a set 12 minute period to present research findings and answer audience questions.  In Melbourne this occurred in a large room of around 6 booths that fitted around 20 people each.  It is a type of “speed-researching” where one can go from concept to concept and allows the conference to offer hundreds of different speakers and, more importantly, different perspectives and evidence.  It was like dipping into the heads of thinkers from around the world.  It also put Australian safety conferences to shame.

Over ten years ago at an international HIV conference in Melbourne, students stood in front of posters tacked to furry partition walls.  Now those posters were PowerPoint available for viewing on a bank of PCs.  Less personal perhaps but worth a try.

The ICAP Conference runs for almost an entire week and is a terrific resource for OHS consultants, professionals and researchers.

Kevin Jones

Disclaimer: Kevin Jones was provided with a media pass to this conference

This week two new OHS books came across my desk unbidden.  Both are very good but have very different contexts and both were published by Baywood Publishing Company Inc.

“Who Is Nursing Them? It is Us.” “Neoliberalism, HIV/AIDS, and the Occupational Health and Safety of South African Public Sector Nurses” by Jennifer R Zelnick

Northern Exposure – A Canadian Perspective on Occupational Health and Environment by David Bennett

South Africa is an exotic foreign land to me.  I am aware of the basic political issues of the country for the last 30 years but, in terms of OHS, I know there have been some major mining incidents and that HIV/AIDS is a major occupational and social challenge.  Zelnick’s book illustrates clearly the difficulty of tackling a workplace risk that is also a hot, contentious public health and political issue.

The analysis of the impact of neo-liberal policies is less directly relevant to hazard management of HIV/Aids risks to nurses from needlestick injuries.  For any health sector workers outside of South Africa, the level of resources and the attitudes to needlesticks is confronting.  Any stigma relating to HIV/AIDs in non-African countries is doubly problematic in South Africa.  Interviews with hospital managers and nurses show a lack of confidentiality and

“Health care providers are scared to discuss  HIV/AIDS because they are scared that they cannot handle the emotions and all the complications….” (page 120)

Gender issues in health care is a crucial element in this book, a perspective that was new to this (male) reviewer.  These issues are complicated by the social and political context of South Africa.  For instance, and again on page 120, public health practitioners are directly acknowledging

“the intractable difficulties in changing sexual behaviour and traditional relationships…” and

“If true, the acknowledgement that all African women are living in fear of being infected, in the context of occupational exposure and reporting requirements, means that most nurses have a legitimate fear of reporting injuries and agreeing to VCT [Voluntary Counselling and Testing]“.

Several chapters in this book include a Chapter Summary and Chapter Conclusion which are very useful as there is so much information and discussion that, occasionally, one must be reminded of the major chapter points.

What was also quite powerful and a feature that would be good in other books is a chapter of excerpts from first-person interviews.  Too often academic titles summarize interview responses into comparative percentages and, although this indicates significant statistics, it also dulls the voices.  In the chapter “Nurses Speak” Zelnick writes

“Overall, nurses’ views corroborated managers’ descriptions of how denial, stigma, women’s position, and government failures led to problems with implementing OHS measures.” (page 146)

Much of the content of this book contrasts remarkably with the OHS issues faced in other countries.  Manual handling risks pale when reading about the lot of nurses in South Africa.

Canadian Perspectives

Bennett’s book is more comfortable to this reviewer as the ideological/Commonwealth environment is more familiar as there is greater overlap with general safety management.  However, this book includes a balanced approach to environment as well as OHS, a combination rarely include in the one book but it works.  There is a similar level of activism and regulatory response to these two areas of law and that overlap, that convergence, is reflected in the increase of integrated HSE professionals.

Bennett devotes one chapter to “Occupational Health: A Discipline Out of Focus”.  In that chapter he writes  about us living in a “scientific culture” which reflects some of the push for evidence-based decision-making.  On page 52 he writes:

“There ought to be a clear distinction between the facts or the objective truths of science on one hand and, on the other, the prescriptions, policies, and strategies which are, in some way, related to them ….

But, I contend, this is not so, since de facto, the science which is appealed to, embodies both moral values and the strategies which will be used in the approach to industrial disease.  These prescriptive issues ought to be for (democratic) policy-makers to decide.  If I am correct, the strategies have, in effect, already been decided before the policy process takes place-to the detriment of truly effective policies to promote and protect workers’ health.”

As with the previous book, there is a new approach to content where Bennett revisits several important books or articles about cancer – “Cancer-Gate: How to Win the Losing Cancer War” and “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” both by Samuel S Epstein and “The Secret History of the War on Cancer” by Devra Davis.  The enjoyment of these short sections is that they are not just book reviews.  Bennett looks at the reception the Davis book received and also places these texts in more familiar literary territory by collecting them with other books that

“…include a focus on the part played by work and workers, both as those on the receiving end of current policies and as instruments of change.”

- books such as Natural Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism and Fast Food Nation.

Bennett takes a similar approach with Sustainability – “Materials Matter – Towards a Sustainable Materials Policy” By Kenneth Geiser, “Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution” by Hawken, Lovins and Lovins.

The chapter that had most “punch” was when Bennett critiqued the role of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).  It provided a fresh approach to the potential “substitute for tangible national regulations” that is presented by a raft of international  standards including a health and safety management standard.  On page 159, Bennett writes:

“The chief danger for labor, however, is that an ISO Health and Safety Management Standard would come to be used as an empty surrogate for the health and safety regimes which have been built up over a century of carnage and campaigning and which were implemented in detail from roughly the early 1970s onwards.  Health and safety as merely a management function would cut workers out of the action completely and produce workplace conditions and procedures entirely alien to the regimes of the last quarter century.”

Bennett concludes the last chapter by speaking positively of the role of the ILO Guidelines on Safety and Health Management Systems but only after having considered the advantages and disadvantages of various national health and safety management systems, including Britain’s and Australia’s.  Bennett’s is a refreshing and thought-provoking perspective.

Both the above books, provided by Baywood for review, will appeal to safety professionals and policy makers but the Canadian safety and environment book clearly has a broader appeal but Zelnick’s book on South Africa is almost required reading for those who work in the health care sector and are active in OHS.

Kevin Jones

One of the first OHS trade exhibitions for 2011 in Australia starts today.  Exhibitions like Safety In Action are the best opportunities for many health and safety professionals, representatives and students to update their product knowledge.  It is usually here where one finds out about non-steel capped safety footwear, new fall harnesses or the latest interlock devices.  But do these innovative products needs to be promoted by scantily clad women as in the picture on the right?

This has been a constant annoyance at trade exhibitions for some time and, in fact, some exhibitions in Australia in 2010 received complaints about this type of promotional strategy.  Scantily clad women do attract the attention of potential clients, particularly in male-dominated industries, but there is considerable debate about whether the strategy promotes the product or the breasts.

The picture above was on a large brochure for portable safety showers supplied by Spill Station Australia as a magazine insert in April 2011.  I checked these showers out at a Safety In Action trade show several years ago and the structure and portability are great features.  But:

• What does this say about the safety shower?
• What does it say about the company’s understanding of their clients?
• Were all their male clients bottle fed?
• Does this company have no female customers?

The image got my attention but has discouraged me from contacting the company about their product.

The safety profession, generally, needs to be more sensitive to how their profession is promoted.  In Australia, the profession is trying to encourage more women to join.  The heavy industries of construction, petroleum, mining and others, the trade associations are all encouraging women to seriously consider a career in those sectors.  Depicting safety equipment in a sexist, soft-porn fashion throws the safety industry and profession back decades.

Over the next three days in Melbourne, the Safety In Action trade show will be promoting safety products and services to over 10,000 visitors.  Spill Station Australia is listed as an exhibitor at this trade show and it will be interesting to see if this type of strategy is echoed in their stand display.  If Spill Station does not, it is likely that one of the other exhibitors will.

Kevin Jones

In early April 2011 SafetyAtWorkBlog questioned the appropriateness of an advertising image of a semi-clad woman in an emergency shower.  The emergency shower company, Spill Station Australia, has changed the major image of its shower ads in the most recent brochure being distributed with some Australian OHS magazines.

Kevin Jones

Testosterone does not have an immediate association with occupational health and safety, however it could have an impact on collaboration according to a recent article abstract in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

Researchers at University College London have found that

“Testosterone causally disrupts collaboration during joint decision-making – and does so by increasing individuals’ egocentricity, so that they overweigh their own subjective decisions.”

Those safety professionals who have worked in male-dominated industry sectors may find this to be confirmation of their experience of workplace negotiations but the potential social and organisational  impacts of the research deserve attention and discussion. It should be emphasised that the research focused on testosterone and how it affected women, as shown in another article on the same research.

The full article elaborates on the findings, importantly:

“…this effect was selective because while disrupting collective decision-making, testosterone left individual decisions unaffected, which is important in the light of testosterone’s widespread associations with aspects of non-social choice such as attention, working memory, spatial memory and reward processing…”

The broader context of this research was acknowledged in the research findings where several possibilities were mooted:

“A third possibility is that testosterone might render individuals less susceptible to social influence more generally….”

OHS strategies seem to be increasingly incorporating biological and neurological research and there is a great trap that such approaches under-emphasise the social context of work.  A multidisciplinary approach on how male workers, particularly, make workplace decisions could prove fascinating.

One researcher, Nicholas Wright is quoted as saying

“Too much testosterone can help blind us to other people’s views…  This can be very significant when we are talking about a dominant individual trying to assert his or her opinion in, say, a jury….”

Or an OHS committee.

Kevin Jones

On 12 July 2012, SafetyAtWorkBlog described Moira Rayner as the “stand out speaker at the public hearing into workplace bullying conducted in Melbourne Australia.  She was always on topic and spoke of her own experience of being accused of bullying.  The Hansard record of that hearing is now available online and deserves some analysis to illustrate Rayner’s points but to also to expand our understanding of workplace bullying and the Committee’s operation.

Moira Rayner

As a representative of the Law Institute of Victoria, Moira Rayner, questioned the existing definition of workplace bullying favoured by Australian OHS regulators and said that the definition requires case studies and examples of workplace bullying so that people understand the application of the definition in reality.  Many case studies are available in the bullying/OHS/HR literature but these are rarely communicated to community except by labour lawyers through bulletins or by media releases from OHS regulators that rarely gain attention beyond the media editors.

Rayner addressed the confusion in the workplace bullying definition from its reliance on “unreasonableness”:

“It seems to me that unreasonableness or the claimed reasonable purpose of the behaviour needs to be, again, spelled out. You hit on the crux of the matter, Madam Chair, when you say that it is very hard to take action if there has not been some physical consequence such as a person being hurt, burned, stuffed down a vat or something of that sort. Yet every day we see those injuries, in terms of people having psychiatric illnesses or those which are stress-induced, and leaving the workplace rather than saying anything.”

This contrasts strongly with position of the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries.

(Some of the cases are listed in various OHS & HR reference and text books, many out-of-print, but the footnote provides more information and links.)

Broad communication of workplace bullying cases is essential and has been lacking in Australia.  It can be argued that part of the reason for the current Parliamentary inquiry was the amount of media attention and community outrage generated by the Coroner’s Inquest into Brodie Panlock and the subsequent prosecutions.  The case could easily have slipped under the media’s attention.

Rayner has a useful perspective on handling workplace bullying cases as she was Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Commissioner for a time.  She floated the idea of a “bullying commissioner” at the public hearing, a concept she acknowledges is unfashionable in legal circles, but may be just the type of organisation required for new thoughts and strategies on workplace bullying.

Rayner said:

“Collecting data through a statutory agency such as Fair Work Australia, the Fair Work Ombudsman or some other mythical bullying commissioner—perhaps a bullying tsar; I am making it up on the run—would give you some idea.  But the most important thing for the people who are receiving this is to at least publish, for the education of the community, examples where an officer has said, ‘Yes, that could well be bullying’ or ‘That couldn’t possibly be’ so they have a guideline.  That is how equal opportunities started in 1977 and 1978 particularly—sending out examples of cases that were brought to the then commissioner and the responses which were dealt with anonymously, and then sent out to employers and they frequently got a message about what was and what was not acceptable behaviour.” (page 15)

Panlocks

The parents of Brodie Panlock, Damian and Rae, spoke at the Melbourne hearing.  The Panlocks seemed to be under prepared compared to other speakers but they had a reasonable assumption that the Committee would be fully aware and briefed on the circumstances of their daughter’s suicide.  It was around halfway into their time when the Committee admitted an unfamiliarity with the Panlock case.  One Committee member, Rowan Ramsay said:

“Three of us are from interstate and we probably do not have a good understanding of Brodie’s case as perhaps Mike does, as he lives here, though I am aware of the case. I do not want you to go places that are too uncomfortable for you.”

This took the wind out of the sails of the Panlocks as it was necessary to address some basic elements of their daughter’s case that most of the observers were already aware of.  The lack of information of the case was further illustrated by a question from Ramsay about there being “a romantic issue”, clearly stemming from the evidence of Garry Brack the previous day in Sydney.

The unfamiliarity of the Committee seriously questions the sources of information being accessed by the Committee, particularly as the Coronial findings into Brodie Panlock’s death are readily accessible through a simple internet search.  As well as the public submissions, it is reasonable to expect any Parliamentary Committee to have undertaken a literature review of workplace bullying research, a media search and an investigation into the most recent OHS  prosecutions of workplace bullies.

Mental Health

It is useful to note that this House Standing Committee on Education and Employment has undertaken this task after completing an inquiry into the employment of people with mental health issues. The final report of that inquiry was mentioned in passing by the workplace bullying inquiry Chair, Amanda Rishworth when she noted (not listed in Hansard) that through the mental health inquiry, workplace bullying was never mentioned. (The report confirms the absence of workplace bullying but there was a brief mention of bullying in relation to schoolyards on pages 46-47.)

This may seem odd as workplace bullying is often discussed in the context of mental health at work. But the previous inquiry did not consider the generation of mental health problems from work activity, poor management practices or psychosocial abuse.  Had it done so, SafetyAtWorkBlog would have given it more attention.

Dr Evelyn Field

Dr Evelyn Field made her presentation to the committee in a rapid-fire delivery which can only really be appreciated from Hansard.  During her delivery she seemed to relate the failures of the Fukushima nuclear reactor and a space shuttle, in some way, to workplace bullying.  SafetyOz tweeted these at the time in disbelief and confusion but Dr Field stated (the whole paragraph is provided for context):

“I think we need to look at role models, from our CEO and CFO down, and to again encourage them to see bullying as a sign of dysfunction within the management system. It is like the canary down the coalmine. It is not just a matter of, ‘Let’s employ a high-profile legal term to get rid of the target and then the bully later on,’ but rather, ‘Let’s look at what’s going on.’ Unfortunately and very sadly, Fukushima is a very good example of bullying. I think we would really benefit from a national helpline, with state-based advice for our targets—legal advice, medical advice and training. There needs to be somewhere to go. My website is good. It is being updated, but really there needs to be something more accepted than that. Mine is my own thing.” (page 35) [emphasis added)

Statements like this generate questions of credibility.

The Columbia space shuttle reference is much easier to understand as it is in terms of a lack of leadership and listening:

“The inquiry into the Columbia disaster, which was the shuttle that fell to the earth with the loss of seven lives, concluded that leaders should listen, listen and listen to get all the information.” (page 37)

Committee Questions

There were two Committee questions of particular note.  Both related to the evidence being provided Dr Field:

“…is it possible that this has something to do with gender? These workforces that you identify are feminised. The ones that have been talked about are still male domains. Is there a difference about women and male interactions or about more females reacting with each other or do they have a lower threshold?” (page 40)

The other requires more context:

“Mr SYMON:How does that correlate with what happens in a blue-collar workforce? Why is there this big difference in reported cases, and even in submissions that we have received, from this group versus the rest of the workforce?

Ms Field: I am not sure what you mean.

Mr SYMON: You have identified, and we have read in your submission, that some professions are over-represented in terms of cases. I am asking about the professions or occupations that are under-represented. Is there any opposite reason for that—do they have better managers in those areas, or are they less able to complain because they are less likely to know what should be expected in a workplace? Is there something there that has not been said?

Ms Field: I am not aware of the international or local research about that, but I will go by my gut feeling…..” (page 39)

Dr Field’s evidence was principally from white-collar occupations, generating the question from the committee member Mike Symon.  Symon asks about management competence and consultative structures.  Dr Field’s response illustrates a major concern of the Parliamentary inquiry, the paucity of valid research in psychosocial issue under investigations.  Her response also illustrates that in the absence of evidence we all rely on anecdotes, experience and gut feelings.

The Committee questions are excellent questions.  How strong is the gender factor in workplace bullying?  Is workplace bullying different in blue-collar to white-collar occupations?

More relevant is the secondary question, if gender and “class” are elements in workplace bullying, is it possible to develop a single control measure or strategy to reduce the psychosocial harm?

This Parliamentary inquiry should have the full support of OHS professionals and others as there is the potential to change Australia’s system of work.

Kevin Jones

There are several publications that include cases studies of workplace bullying.  I have listed a couple that I could grab from the bookcase easily

Books

CCH’s Australian Master Human Resources Guide, 2004/2005 edition

CCH’s Australian Master OHS & Environment Guide, 2nd edition

Search Terms

The footnote provides a list of some of the terms that may be used in an internet search:

• NSW, young gardener, practical jokes
• Jeffrey, Police and Community Youth Club, NSW

Court cases

WorkSafe Victoria v Reginald Mowat, unreported, Ballarat Magistrate’s Court, Magistrate Mornane, 22 July 2004

Inspector Gregory Maddafrod v MA Coleman Joinery (NSW) Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 317

WorkSafe Victoria Prosecution Summaries

Cafe Vamp

• MAP Foundation 
• Nicholas Smallwood
• Rhys Macalpine
• Gabriel Toomey
• Marc Luis de Cruz

Macedon Ranges Shire Council

Radio Ballarat

Dennis John Vines

LA HQ Pty Ltd

Dylan Poulton

Peter Russell Coulter

The Building Safety conference this weekend had one or two underwhelming speakers but these were overshadowed by some brilliant presentations, and by brilliant, I mean challenging. I had no indication of what was to come from the presentation by Dr Dean Laplonge on gender. His presentation has caused me to begin to reassess my own (male) perceptions and those of the safety profession.

The title of this article is a Monty Python reference where a professor from England joins the Philosophy Faculty of the University of Woolloomooloo. He is inducted into the faculty by being told the rules and he even has his name changed to Bruce. This sketch is a good example of humour through hyperbole but over the decades this sketch has become more disturbing as, amongst others, it shows a gender perspective of the early 1970s that, in some industries, still echoes.

I was reminded of this sketch as Laplonge talked about his experience with gender issues in the oil & gas, mining and construction industries in Australia and Canada but I could have easily considered the Lumberjack Song.

Dean Laplonge was critical of gender being misunderstood in male-dominated industries like construction. It has been misunderstood as an issue of simply increasing the number of women in a workplace. Yet, it could be argued, that more sustainable cultural change may come from a new perspective on gender being accepted and applied by the dominant gender demographic – men.

His presentation needs time to seep into our assumptions and attitudes and demands reflection. He stated that one cannot talk about OHS in a male-dominated workplace without including gender, yet in the construction industry incidents are investigated without even considering gender as a possible contributory factor. Laplonge identified the following traits in male-dominated industries:

• strength
• dominance
• control
• independence.

These may be admirable traits but to show these elements male workers often take excessive risks and perform unsafe acts. Safety is often seen as a threat as it contradicts this risk taking.

We have often thought of these workplace attitudes as a cultural element when what we really mean is it is a gender trait, but we do not have the words, or readily understand, the necessary concepts.

Laplonge mentioned several case studies in his presentation, several that are available as case studies on the Factive website. The following case studies are highly recommended. I am embarrassed to admit that I see elements of my own work and attitudes in them.

• Women are not men tamers.
• Communicating Safety Rules.
• Men Behaving Badly.
• The De-Masculinisation of Safety Observations.

It has been a long time since gender was widely discussed across society and this had usually come from a feminist perspective originating in the 1970s and 1980s. I read a seminal sociological text in my university days, Gender At Work, but had not considered applying some of those findings into the safety context. I will be revisiting it.

Laplonge’s presentation was an eye-opener to the presence of gender in many of the attitudes and approaches we apply to safety management. SafetyAtWorkBlog articles have touched on gender issues in the past, particularly in relation to workplace bullying, but I hadn’t realised the significance of the gender theme. I don’t believe that gender issues are a major element of workplace safety but they certainly exist and need to be acknowledged in our forward planning and investigations. I look forward to the journey

Several SafetyAtWorkBlog articles recently have had record readership statistics. One of particular note concerned gender issues in the workplace.  On 9 June 2013, Marie-Claire Ross wrote about her experiences with gender bias in the workplace and, in particular, its existence in the safety profession.

This reminded me of two documents I recently read about gender and safety. The April 2013 edition of the Australian Journal of Emergency Management (AJOEM)devoted an entire edition of the magazine to gender issues.This is a useful counterpoint to the SafetyAtWorkBlog article as emergency management remains a male-dominated culture.

This edition of AJOEM includes the following snippets.

While investigating communications, Dr Christine Owen’s research revealed

“…cultural challenges to team communication and specifically a masculinist culture (i.e. acting with high confidence and bravado).” (page 3)

“The findings suggest that there are particular cultural practices associated with masculinity that work to shut down communication and contribute to the marginalisation of women’s voices.”

The AJOEM edition provides good case studies that should have us reassessing our own safety communications and conduct. A research report by Denise Salin of Finland and Helge Hoel of Manchester has the potential to be more challenging however.  Their article called “Workplace Bullying as a Gendered Phenomenon” (Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol 28 No 3, 2013 PP. 235-251) has implications for the management of workplace bullying and provides an extra dimension to implementing any code of practice for workplace bullying.  Salin and Hoel found that

“…bullying is gendered rather than gender-neutral [and that this] has implications above all for the way managers, organisational representatives and policy-makers should address and prevent workplace bullying.”

The recently released draft code of practice on workplace bullying from Safe Work Australia only mentions gender in its discussion of discrimination and harassment, elements that it says are not workplace bullying although they may occur at the same time. Salin and Hoel quote research that focuses on a more contemporary perspective on gender

“…as a social category that permeates social interaction and therefore also organisational life: organisational structures, practices and everyday interactions in organisational settings.”

This clearly has more relevance in examining workplace bullying than the more established perspective as gender almost equating to “biological sex”.  The social category perspective still allows for the study of bullying with relation to social power but allows for discussion on socialisation of men and women and social identity theory. The researchers state in their conclusion that

“We believe that acknowledging the gender aspects and being aware of them when designing prevention and intervention mechanisms will benefit both men and women.”

Workplace bullying is not an easy hazard to prevent or manage but being conscious of gender in our approach to the hazard may provide a more effective investigation.  For businesses that are just starting out, being aware of gender as an underlying element to how we communicate about workplace safety may establish a more sustainable base for a safety culture.

Kevin Jones

Recently a colleague of mine expressed regret that occupational health and safety in Australia is no longer occupational. Occupational health and safety (OHS) established its parameters in its title but now most of Australia is bound to Work Health and Safety laws. Work is more than a workplace and so the discipline, the OHS profession, became more complex. Some would say that it has always been complex and that many OHS professionals failed to see the bigger picture, the broad social context of workplace health and safety.

I was reminded of my colleague’s regrets when someone on a construction site recently asked for my opinion on some pictures of her son, at a childcare centre, hitting some nails into a block of wood. The boy (pictured right, at home) was wearing safety glasses, albeit a little large; the “work area” was separated from the rest of the children and the boy was supervised at all times by a child care worker. I was told that some of the parents had expressed concern that such an activity should not be happening in a childcare centre due to the potential risk to other children.

I said that I saw very little risk compared to the benefits of having children emulate their parents and to improving their fine motor skills in a very difficult task. The “work area” was segregated, the “workers” were supervised at all times and some personal protective equipment had been provided. I advised that the supervision continue to focus on the children and that properly sized safety glasses be obtained.

It occurred to me later that I had advised about an activity that was not work, was not performed by a worker, but was in a workplace. Should I have expressed an opinion at all? I am on OHS professional but I was not advising on work and my advice was based on a photograph and not an inspection of the workplace. But if I was a Work Health and Safety (WHS) professional, would my opinion have carried more weight because I was advising about the emulation of work, in a workplace where a qualified childcare worker was supervising? Is there a functional difference? Should the approach to risk be different?

I think the answer is that I have never really advised about safety, only about risks and hazards. Such things can exist in workplaces, roads, back verandahs, up trees, in the air or anywhere. And therefore safety can be anywhere.

By looking at risks, hazards and safety in a structured manner, it may be possible to reduce harm and reducing harm is the core principle of OHS, WHS and all the other safety professions. But more importantly, reducing harm is a social value, a norm, an expectation, and an element that perhaps too many safety professionals forget.

The boy pictured above is learning about the hazards presented by hammers, nails and wood. He is learning about risks by having his parent supervise and advise him. He is learning about safety at the same time.

Performing these tasks at a childcare centre will teach him the same things but significantly, it will also teach others and teach them by example – a crucial element in the safety leadership we safety professionals advocate.

What I have not yet said in this article is that hammering at the childcare centre is available to all genders, not just boys, and the girls apparently enjoy the task just as much. I wonder if gender prejudice and outmoded stereotypes are behind some of the parents’ concerns. Should a princess not hit a nail? Should a fairy not use a hammer? Should a girl not emulate what she may see her father doing in the garden or the workshop? Should a young women not study engineering? Should a woman not be a plumber?

A young woman contributed to my political awareness in my early 20s in response to me saying that I was not interested in politics by stating that politics is in everything. Within a year I was a long haired, harem pant-wearing protester. In a parallel conversation, Amree may have said that safety is in everything. Safety is in everything we do, to varying degrees, and it is the job of the safety professionals to tell this fact to the world. But what we must do first is accept the fact ourselves. Without self-realisation, there will be no progress in harm reduction for ourselves or our society.

Kevin Jones

SafetyAtWorkBlog regularly receives excellent review books from the New York publishing company, BaywoodPublishing.  The latest is entitled Safety or Profit? – International Studies in Governance, Change and the Work Environment.   I have yet to get beyond the introduction to the chapters by Australian academics on precarious workers (Quinlan) and the decriminalisation of OHS (Johnstone) but the introduction is fascinating.

The most fascinating is its discussion of Lord Robens’ Report of the Inquiry into Health and Safety at Work from 1973. The editors, Theo Nichols and David Walters, question the “major advance” many claimed for the Robens report by comparing it reviews 40 years earlier.  Nichols and Walters quote the conservatism that led to Robens seeing criminal law as being “largely irrelevant”, and legal sanctions being “counter to our philosophy”.  However, they do admit that Robens was prophetic on the growth of self-regulation and the duties of care.

Nichols and Walters also remind us that the Robens-inspired Health and Safety At Work Act of 1974 did not recommend the creation of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) representatives.

That occurred a few years later with the Safety Representative and Safety Committee Regulations of 1977.  The editors take this as an example of the enormous influence that the trade union movement exerted in this decade.  Given so many OHS laws since then have combined the two issues of OHS and industrial representation, it is important to remember that this was not always so.

Indeed one can argue that what has dated OHS legislation based on these 1970s most is the industrial relations impositions discussed above.  Most will acknowledge that the influence of trade unions has declined markedly in most countries since the 1970s yet OHS laws, even newer Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, continue to be structured round a tripartite model that does not match the industrial, economic or social demographics.  How different the OHS laws would have been if they had been based on values and norms rather than economic and political tripartite agreement?  We would not be trying to now convince the community of the values and norms (or sell safety) that were originally only a subtext of OHS laws.

Nichols and Walters acknowledge the changed work and economic situation over the last 40 years and ask “how those who work in non-trade union places can best be protected”.  This is a question that should be asked constantly, particularly, when the union movement and its perspective was so influential in the establishment of the OHS laws.

They also acknowledge how the research climate has changed.  They note that the sources of advice in the 70s were from doctors, lawyers, engineers, ergonomists, occupational hygienists and others. The growth in “critical social scientific research, has changed the focus on OHS into new labour areas, to issues of gender and to newly discovered occupational hazards.  But also to the study of “culture”.

Significantly, the editors write that

“This talk about a safety culture is often as superficial as Robens’ own penchant for invoking the importance of “attitudes” or of what an earlier generation referred to as the “human factor”…. and it is often based on a similar lack of evidence for the remedies offered.” (page 6)

This discussion of safety culture is refreshing and the editors are very topical even discussing the neo-liberal attacks on “health and safety madness” in the UK and the almost hysterical hyperbole around red tape.

A last and telling quote from the Introduction is that

“…charges to the effect that “health and Safety madness” or the “burden of red tape” impedes efficiency and profit distract attention from the possibility that profit can impede health and safety.  This is not least so, of course, when capital is strong and labor weak, an equation that invites corner cutting.” (page 7)

I have yet to get past the Introduction in this book but cannot wait to Quinlan and Johnstone in particular.  The gender perspective in chapter 2 by Katherine Lippel and Karen Messing  is promising but gender studies should be gender neutral and I am keen to see if this chapter reflects this.  The OHS and corporate aspects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster have been well reported but in one chapter Charles Woolfson argues

“…that today, the legacy of the long era of deregulation in the United States, exported globally in the name of free enterprise and economic efficiency, continues to take its toll in worker lives and the well-being of communities.  He suggests that it remains to be seen whether this unpalatable truth will find acceptance by those with the power to reconfigure safety regimes to protect people first and profits second.” (page 13)

Baywood Publishing does not seem to have the prominence of other academic publishers but I love the global pool of talent they can draw on.  Chapters from Sweden, Canada and elsewhere provide a local perspective in a global context.  I should not have to look overseas or in expensive journals for quality research from my own country but that seems to be the way of the academic publishing world.  I cannot wait to get time to read the rest of it.

Kevin Jones

The Baywood site does not include electronic versions of the book but I believe they are available for around $US43.  The ePub ISBN is 978-0-89503-819-7 and ePDF is 978-0-89503-820-3

In December 2013 I wrote:

“The Age is correct in saying that claims of workplace bullying are “set to soar”. This has been predicted for some time, even privately by members of the Fair Work Commission, but the number of claims does not always indicate the level of a problem.” (link added)

Recently the Fair Work Commission (FWC) released its first quarterly report into anti-bullying  applications and the statistics indicate that there is no soaring of claims.  Sadly the report does not provide analysis only facts. According to the FWC media release, in the first quarter of 2014 FWC received 151 anti-bullying applications, 32 were withdrawn and 16 were “resolved during proceedings”.  The report itself shows that the majority of applications were made by employees in companies of more than 100 employees and most of them concerned allegations of unreasonable behaviour by their manager.  The top three industries where applications originated are, from highest to lowest:

• Clerical industry,
• Retail industry, and
• Health and Welfare.

Sadly the sex of the applicants is not listed.  This is a shame as the Parliamentary Inquiry into Workplace Bullying tried to identify if workplace bullying was more common in industries that predominantly employed women. It seems as if the triage process of case management implemented by the FWC is working with 23 cases (around 15%) withdrawn during this process.

Carlo Caponecchia predicted that the floodgates would not eventuate and posited three potential reasons, reasons that more analysis of data by FWC could help validate or dispel.

“Firstly, defence personnel and most state government employees will not be able to make a claim to the FWC”

“Second, no damages can be awarded by the FWC for bullying claims”

“The third point is that people making a claim have to be currently employed at the workplace”

As Caponecchia said, these three elements change the dynamics of claiming workplace bullying.  Here’s hoping that someone in the FWC or the government is analysing the workplace bullying applications so that OHS and HR professionals can better understand bullying and the organisational dynamics (the work environment) in which it occurs.

Kevin Jones

When people mention safety, they are often really talking about risk.  In a similar way, people talk about the absurdity of ‘elf ‘n’ safety when they actually mean public liability or food safety or HACCP.  And when some professionals talk about risk management they mean minimising the cost to the employer or controlling reputational damage.

Recently two books were released that illustrate the limitations of the current Western/patriarchal society’s approach to workplace safety. Dr Dean Laplonge has written about gender and its role in making decisions and Dr Rob Long has written his third book on risk “Real Risk – Human Discerning and Risk“.  Both deserve close reading and that reading should be used to analyse how safety professionals conduct their work, the organisational environment in which they work and the cultural restrictions imposed in their technical education.

Laplonge has written a book out of the extensive research and training on gender issues in the mining industry.  “So you think you’re tough? – Getting serious about gender in mining” provokes thoughts and self-analysis about gender in the workplace and safety management systems.  This perspective may be part of the reason that attempts at changing safety cultures, particularly in industries where there is a strong gender imbalance – construction, mining, emergency services, nursing, teaching, struggle. (For those who cannot purchase the book, check out this free publication on the topic from the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum)

Laplonge argues convincingly that the success of the Women’s Movement in the 1960s and 1970s has caused gender to be seen as almost exclusively a female issue.  This compartmentalisation has allowed patriarchal company structures to ignore the fundamental concepts of fairness and equality as can be seen in the ongoing campaigns for equal pay, equal rights and fair work. Laplonge believes that this compartmentalisation has limited the development of safety cultures in some, male-dominated, industries.

He also discusses the need for men and women to change their personalities to fit in to a workplace or industry sector when it should be those industries and work practices that change to accommodate the needs of workers, regardless of gender.  He mentions on page 31

“The acronym FIFO normally refers to “fly-in-fly-out”. but “fit in or fuck off” is a more colloquial definition, now proudly displayed on T-shirts worn by people who like the mining culture as it is. The fact that such a definition even exists shows that the mining industry has a problem with people who are not of a particular type.”

The problem is not with the people coming to work but the workplace culture they are coming to.

In Laplonge’s chapter “Guidelines for Gender and Safety” he recommends that, after gender awareness training, one should ask the following questions:

• “What is it about being a man that might encourage a person to take a risk?
• Why might women equally be encouraged to take the same risk?
• What happens to the man who does not take a risk? (Think about this in the context of what is defined as good masculinity and not in terms of rewards we might claim he gets as a result of acting safely at work)
• Similarly, what about the woman who works in a masculine environment – what are the possible responses to her if she does not take a risk?
• In what ways might our workplace or work culture encourage a person to take a risk so they can be seen to performing a particular gender?” (Pages 106-7)

This gender approach to safety is not overtly stated in Dr Rob Long’s latest work as Long talks primarily of humanity rather than men and women but there is sufficient information in Long’s book for gender analysis.  Long’s two case studies of risk takers, Jessica Watson and Dick Smith, could have benefited from a discussion of how our gender-fixed culture treats different approaches to risk between men and women.  Long discusses the media’s dismissive treatment of Watson’s attempts to sail round the world in which one  can see a strong gender element. Given that media is the principal way adults learn about risk, safety and hazards, an analysis of how media reflects and encourages a certain approach to risk and the gender underpinnings would be valuable.

Long’s book is the latest in a series of books, training, and seminars that challenges some of the fundamental tenets of how occupational health and safety (OHS) is taught.  He downplays the history of OHS theory that is based on various pyramids and dominoes to ensure that information is relevant.  At a recent launch of the “Real Risk” book , it was noted that tertiary OHS courses continue to teach theories that have been proven to be false.  This, and other issues, has put Dr Long on the outer of Australia’s OHS profession but sometimes one can learn more from heretics that from the establishment.

Where Long most succeeds is in providing a strategic model for corporate maturity that allows companies to self assess their position from the pathological to the generative.  Some of this comes from the work of Patrick Hudson but Long is able to present corporate maturity as achievable and links our understanding of risk to real world scenarios, often otherwise mundane scenarios.

Long’s approach is gaining traction in Australian management circles for several reasons.

• It places behaviour-based approaches to safety as one of the middle steps of the journey rather than as the solution to all safety problems, as many zealots claim.
• It roots the management of safety and risk within the greater organisational decision-making processes.  Safety and risk are seen as integral rather than nuisance impositions.
• It allows companies to place their cultural assessments and surveys in an organisational and strategic context rather than as a managerial obligation that no one knows what to do with.

Long’s strategy could benefit from a broader understanding of the role of gender in the workplace but this is perhaps one of those areas where students can help polish or expand a theory.

Both of these new books are useful tools in the journey to understand workplace safety and why it isn’t working as well as it could.  Could an outdated understanding of gender be lurking behind some of the decision-making that impedes organisational growth? Could the corporate focus on work health and safety be more palatable and effective if one talks about safety in the context of risk decisions? Could each of these approaches add value to a company’s corporate/safety culture survey?

Everybody needs to learn and the recent works of Laplonge and Long present important perspectives that should be carefully considered when planning a workplace safety strategy, trying to find out why a strategy is not working or just trying to understand the world of work in which we operate.

Kevin Jones

A spat has recently emerged on one of the safety discussion forums in Linkedin.  The catalyst was a statement that

“60% of every Australian worker turns up for work unfit due to De-hydration“

The source of this data, not disclosed at the time of the original post, was a company that sells

“…a great tasting, scientifically proven mix of cutting-edge branch chain amino acids and low Gi carbohydrates for sustained energy release, combined with a formulated blend of electrolytes for optimum hydration in harsh Australian conditions”.

The discussion quickly refocused from the original safety concern to one of unreliability of statements; sadly the discussion also became personal and abusive. but the discussion raised two discussion points:

• The reliability of statements on the internet, and
• the issue of hydration and work performance.

Internet Reliability

It is an established practice to be suspicious of all information on the internet.  This is an extension of the wise advice to be questioning of all we hear, all we know and all we believe, but in the context of the modern technological world.  There are some internet sites and information sources that are more reliable than others but even those will not be 100% reliable (refer to some of the discussion on plagiarism, and academic dishonesty. A particularly useful paper on the latter was a UNESCO report from 2003).

One could argue that the social media, of which this blog is an example, is inherently unreliable. Certainly it can be easily manipulated. But a questioning approach to all the information we consume, should reduce the risk of mistake or, at least, place us in a reasonably practicable position, even if it is embarrassing.

In the context of the quote above, there is no indication that the quote was an example of mischievous marketing as the poster works for a company unrelated to the product.  However, modern advertising can be very sneaky and we need to be aware of the possibility of advertising whenever on the internet.

Hydration

The relationship between hydration, well-being and productivity is far more contentious.  We, the Westernised countries, are being told that we do not drink enough water.

It is important to note that a particularly persistent statement about hydration is a myth.  Snopes.com has identified that there is no foundation to the commonly heard statement that:

“The average person needs to drink eight glasses of water per day to avoid being “chronically dehydrated.””

The body has a fairly effective system to regulate hydration and, as Snopes.com advises, drink when you feel thirsty.  Of course, this is dependent on an employer providing sufficient resources and time to do this – that’s where the OHS and Industrial Relations professionals step in.

The Linkedin discussion directed readers to a thesis about heat stress in the mining sector.  The thesis covers a large number of work-related issues but does make statements such as:

“The primary contributors to heat stress include the climatic conditions, the intensity of work performed, and the clothing worn.” (page 73)

On the issue of hydration, the thesis’ author, Andrew Phillip Hunt, writes

“When work is performed under high levels of heat stress, particularly if the individual is of low fitness and poor body composition, there is a high risk that heat strain will be excessive.” (page 80)

and

“Dehydration is a modifiable factor as hydration can be restored through fluid and food consumption.  It was thus considered a temporary factor for heat intolerance.” (page 81)

No one research paper should be used as conclusive evidence and Hunt’s thesis needs to be considered in a broad range of research but it does remind us that there are other factors that need consideration beyond climatic conditions; one of them, clothing, seems to be often overlooked.

Perhaps the biggest objection to the original statistical post in Linkedin was the simplicity of the statement.  There was no mention of other factors, such as clothing or general fitness of the worker, or the intensity of the work task or acclimatisation. The product was seen as a cure-all for dehydration rather than part of a work health and safety strategy.

The website in the original post includes statements that desperately require the inclusion of references to the source data.  This paragraph in particular, the source of the original post’s graphic, is dramatic:

“3% dehydration can slow your reaction time to the same extent as 0.08 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC). At 0.08 BAC you are 5 times more likely to crash your car, which begs the question – how much more likely are you to have a workplace accident when dehydrated?”

It’s a good question but the argument would be better served if an answer was included.  And the 3% figure?  It is easy to include a footnote to the source, especially on a website.  The lack of such a link casts doubt on the statistic.  Sloppy marketing for short term advantage.

(SafetyAtWorkBlog continues to be critical of comparing workplace activities and risks to those of driving vehicles)

In a summary (page 103) Hunt writes:

“Dehydration, and poor aerobic fitness and body composition are key factors that raise the heat strain experienced by an individual.  Acclimatisation also has an important influence, with acclimatised individuals showing reduced heat strain. Finally factors such as age and gender should be considered when evaluating heat strain….”

Determining the risks associated with working in heat is not simple

Fit For Work

Another element in the initial post is that being dehydrated equates to being unfit for work.  The issue of being “fit for work” has been contentious for years and will be increasingly so as more attention is given to psychosocial well being and cognitive functions.

It seems that “fit for work” has originated primarily from the return-to-work processes (and reached a peak in the UK over the “fit-note“) but as it becomes a determinant for those starting work each day and a more overt OHS consideration in hazard reduction, it will require a clearer definition.

The Safe Work Australia has many mentions of “fit for work” but only one publication expressly discusses the issue, the 2007 publication “Work-Related Alcohol and Drug Use: A Fit for Work Issue“.

It is time that this commonly used term is formalised so that the OHS context of its use is clearer.

The discussion, and sniping, generated by a single post on a LinkedIn discussion forum is indicative of the risks and traps in using social media but such discussions can also illustrate deficiencies in knowledge and understanding of OHS and workplace concepts.  All professions must be prepared to question statements so that myths do not perpetuate to the detriment of the profession. The OHS profession remains comparatively young and there are many gaps in definitions of basic concepts.  These gaps may be seen by some as opportunities for marketing.  Others may seem them as opportunities for research.  Either way there is a need for clarity, and a need to seek this clarity in a polite, constructive manner.

Kevin Jones

Many OHS professionals state that leadership is a crucial element to establishing a safety culture and then support this with examples of positive leadership.  But some people fail at leadership and failure is often more instructional than success.  Recently the CEO of Orica, Ian Smith, had to resign after his abusive manner resulted in the resignations of  two employees.  This is bad enough but when the Board hired Smith around three years earlier, the Board saw his manner as attractive.  If leadership is crucial to a safety culture, what does this say about Orica’s decisions?

The Chanticleer column of the Australian Financial Review (AFR) wrote on March 24 2015 (paywalled):

“The board’s determination to have Smith shake Orica to its foundations was so great it allowed him to destroy staff engagement and walk all over the company’s culture of mutual respect.  What is so bewildering about this deliberately aggressive and occasionally bullying change management strategy is that it was endorsed by a range of respected non-executive directors…..”

The same article says that

“The board failed to realise the significance of what Smith had done. Perhaps, three years of being told everything was OK made them immune to the severity of what he did to McRae and the former manager for corporate communications, Miche Paterson.” (links added)

The language used in much of the reporting of this abuse by a corporate CEO is notable as it illustrates a perception of bullying and unsafe behavior that may be part of the impediment to progressing occupational health and safety (OHS) initiatives on mental health.

The Due Diligence column of the AFR on 30 March 2014 reported that

“Ian Smith, a hard-nosed miner famous for his aggressive management style, was brought in as Orica CEO in February 2012 as a change agent.” (emphasis added)

And that:

“Orica chairman Russell Caplan had been working with Smith on his temper and took regular “temperature checks” on his CEO.” (links added)

WTF? The Board appointed an executive renown for his temper and aggressive manner.  Why would a Board do such a thing?  In OHS terms, the Board’s decision introduced a known hazard into the workplace and applied an administrative control measure to try to achieve a reasonably practicable outcome.  That outcome has been shown to be inconsistent with accepted executive behavioural standards, has caused the resignations of two employees, and is likely to have breached Orica’s own Code of Conduct, a Code that was issued by Ian Smith himself!

The Code lists a value involving Collaboration that says:

“We work together as one business across many geographies and embrace the diversity of our team. We respect and value the participation of everyone. We build trusted partnerships with our stakeholders and we will only succeed if they feel as though they have succeeded with us.” (page 2, emphasis added)

The current perception in the business media is that although the Board made a mistake in appointing Smith it has somehow redeemed itself by quickly fixing the mistake. This lets the Board downplay its substantial error in judgement.

Incident Investigation

If we consider Smith’s behaviour to his colleagues as a workplace incident, an investigation would find the damaging event was Smith’s action but that a major contributory factor would be the Board’s decisions and the actions of its Chair, which contributed to a culture that indicated Smith’s actions were an acceptable managerial approach. The Investigator’s recommendations would surely include that the membership of the Board be reviewed with particular attention to the Chair.

A Board may try to justify the continuance of a bad-tempered CEO if the financial results were improving (although I don’t think this is any justification) but, according to the AFR’s Chanticleer, the Board’s decision to put up with Smith’s behaviour

“…did not appear to deliver superior financial returns through the sharemarket. In the three years Smith ran the company, its shares slumped 27 per cent.”

Is there an excuse for bullying?

A 21 March 2015 article in the Weekend Australian (“Smith exit puts corporate bully boys on notice”, paywalled) was particularly worrying.  The article acknowledges Smith’s behaviour but then almost excuses it by asking:

“….was it reflective of a broader, blokey corporate culture, or was it an isolated incident from a man raised in one of Australia’s toughest mining towns, Broken Hill, and known to have trouble containing himself from aggressive outbursts to those beneath him in the corporate pecking order?”

How would this argument play out if Smith’s abused colleagues put in a complaint under OHS laws, perhaps, for bullying?  A regulator would not accept the culture of a workplace as justification for abuse and harm.  If it did, Cafe Vamp and its employees would never have been prosecuted and fined.

The “blokey” culture

The writer of the Weekend Australian article also described Smith’s abuse as “overly aggressive”, as if some degree of aggression towards employees is acceptable.  The article continues with interviews discussing the blokey culture as if the mining and resources sector is somehow a special case.  If the writer had interviewed an OHS professional or labour lawyer, the article would have shown that such behaviour is not just unpalatable but is illegal.  Orica and all other Australian businesses have a legislative obligation to

“…ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of:

(a) workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the person; and

(b) workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the person, while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking.” (page 15)

The Model WHS Act specifically states that:

“health means physical and psychological health.”

OHS and Work Health and Safety (WS) laws emphasise the importance of applying due diligence to safety management.  In a submission on the draft Model WHS Laws, Michael Tooma and Richard Johnstone wrote that:

“This proactive obligation [due diligence] is an  important reform because health and safety leadership is critical to health and safety outcomes. An international study into best practices in corporate health and safety amongst major corporations by the Conference Board concluded that achieving excellence is about  empowering everyone – management, supervisors, employees and contractors alike – to make health and safety truly work. This ultimately comes down to the commitment and leadership of the top echelon of the organisation. “

The conduct of Ian Smith and the Orica Board seems far from diligent.

Gender

In some of the reporting of Smith’s sacking there is also an implication of gender relations.  The abuse was by Smith towards two female workers, McRae and Paterson; a situation repeatedly mentioned in the press. But there was a fourth person in the room at the time of the incident who is rarely mentioned. A 19 March 2015 report in The Australian (“One insult too many for board”) stated that the meeting in January 2015 included Smith, McRae, Paterson and the Chief Financial Officer, Craig Elkington.  Elkington has not spoken publicly about the incident.

Much of the reporting on this incident is only in the business pages of the newspapers but the issues raised resonate far beyond the share price. The conduct of Smith, Caplan and the Board as a whole should be analysed through the, legitimate, prism of occupational health and safety.

The ramifications of Smith’s behaviour may not be over.  It would only take a workers’ compensation claim for stress by one or both of the executives who resigned in January for the situation to be re-examined.

Kevin Jones

Suicide is a reality in many workplaces.  Work may exacerbate the stresses and psychological conditions leading to people thinking of suicide and it can create those stresses.  Most workers at risk of suicide show signs of distress, just as all workplaces show signs like near misses, but these signs are often not recognised. Mates in Construction is one program that teaches the recognition of these signs after an increasing suicide rate but Australian farmers are also killing themselves.  This reality has generated The Ripple Effect program to, initially, raise awareness of the risks and to de-stigmatise suicide and psychological issues.

Research into farmer suicides has been given some prominence over the last few years. (This audio interview is a good indication)  At least one research literature review into the issue has been followed up with real-world research. Such research needs to include a broad range of issues, particularly including gender. Gender studies have been dominated by feminist perspectives for decades but, particularly in the case of farming, some of the research and work undertaken in the male-dominated mining and construction sectors needs serious consideration.

Farming is often seen as remote and isolated and this perspective is imposed onto interpreting workplace hazards.  But the social impact of a workplace incident or death in the country is just as significant as one in urban areas, in fact, the remoteness probably increases the social “ripple effect”.  The psychosocial issues of workload and working hours, or those associated with bureaucracy, precarious work, fluctuating incomes and work/life balance, can be just as influential on worker health and safety in the country as elsewhere.  These matters are not symptoms of urban work but of work generally.  Hazard control measures and interventions may be different, because of resource restrictions and different social and support networks, but the hazards are the same.

The challenge is to develop multifaceted interventions in a strategic manner.  Otherwise the challenge seems so big that nothing changes.

It is also important that OHS regulators do not dispute the work-related elements of a suicide by over-emphasising the social or family pressures and that the family does not place all of the blame on to the employer or work factors.  There needs to be a balance, respect and discretion in developing risk and harm control measures and in discussing the issue.

Suicides are the end result of a build-up of a range of psychosocial issues.  Signs exist of this build-up but we rarely read them as such.  Men, in particular, (and Australian farmers are mostly male) are often dismissive of these signs and respond by advising mates to “toughen up”, or have another drink, or “she’ll be right”. (All elements of the current trend in resilience training or coping mechanisms – short term and shallow strategies)  These dismissals have been lauded in the past as important elements of the Australian (masculine) culture but such responses can isolate workers at risk further, rather than providing opportunities for help.

Suicide continues to be a challenge for the OHS profession but the more it is talked about, the less stigma it generates, and the closer we will get to reducing those risks.

Kevin Jones

The 19^thTriennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2015) is currently running in Melbourne Australia with 900 delegates, of which 600 are from outside Australia.  It offers a fascinating (online) library of ergonomic and occupational health and safety (OHS) research. Below is a sample of the research on offer picked, largely, at random.

It seems unnecessary to state that ergonomics is an essential part of the knowledge base of safety and production but ergonomics still seems to be a “dark art” to many.  This is acknowledged by many in the sector and is summarised well by Ruurd N. Pikaar

“After many years, working as a HF professional, the author  concludes that the value of ergonomics is far beyond health and safety issues. The primary goal of HFE is contributing to human centred (re)design of systems (Dul et.al, 2012). The primary goal should not be to identify problems -things that others did wrong and correct the problems within the limitations of an already implemented system.” (page 6, paper 88)

One of the hottest issues in ergonomics at the moment seems to be the issue of sedentary office work. The IEA2015 trade show had lots of sellers of standing or variable desks.  One researcher in this area is Leon Straker of Curtin University who, in preparation for a symposium, wrote:

“Employers and occupational health and safety authorities are working to provide safe systems of work for workers with currently high occupational sedentary exposure.” (paper/abstract 79)

Starker and others wrote that their:

“….findings suggest low-back pain may be a potential barrier for changes in sedentary behaviour among office workers in interventions…” (page 2, paper 1908)

and, in a different paper on an experimental design laboratory study, that under-desk cycling [Ed. didn’t know such devices existed] :

“… appeared to have minimal impact on subjective alertness or objectively measured creative problem solving.” (page 2, paper 1909)

Other research relates directly to our understanding of productivity. A team of researchers provided “the first estimates for productivity loss among young workers in Australia” and found evidence that “health conditions had a significant impact on productivity loss” (paper 213).

Research from Sweden provided support for a healthy workplace in which cooperation and respect feature:

“…preliminary results show that the interviewees described the physical factors (such as facilities and equipment) as a fundamental foundation in the working environment. Furthermore, the interviewees also described that psychosocial factors (eg. good  relationships with colleagues and job satisfaction) and organizational factors at work (eg. communication, leadership and participation) to be of great importance to create a healthy working environment and support wellbeing at work. In almost all of the focus groups, a good relationship with colleagues was the single factor that spontaneously was mentioned first as a descriptor for a healthy working environment.” (paper 249)

Not surprisingly, work-related musculo-skeletal disorders (WMSD) featured in a lot of the research and congress discussion.  Research from Washington State, found, among other factors, that:

“Injured workers had a low level of awareness of the risks of developing a WMSD, a tendency to frame work-related pain as customary and blame themselves for the onset.” (paper 291)

It is suggested this tendency exists outside Washington State and may indicate a need to approach workers who may suffer some pain in a different way or to reframe the OHS conversation.

Some researchers from the United States looked at manual handling on construction sites and:

“… believe Prevention through Design (PtD) is necessary to develop and implement effective SH&E strategies for today’s construction workforce. Lowering the RWL [Recommended Weight Limits] of manual lifting tasks in construction increases the need for improved safety and ergonomic planning and designing phases.” (paper 343)

PtD is a concept that the broader OHS profession will be hearing more of in the future as Safety in Design becomes more targeted.

The IEA should be congratulated for making such a range of information available.  Much of it provides no solutions but almost all of it provides clues or the evidence from which solutions can be developed. The “library” is only a small example of the information available for a significant body of knowledge.

Kevin Jones

 Kevin Jones attended the Congress as a media representative.

Occupational health and safety (OHS) professionals are being encouraged to think differently about safety and to focus on the positives instead of the failures, the leads instead of the lags. This needs to be supported by how we describe workplace incidents and in this context the profession can learn from one aspect of the debate on family violence in which Australia is currently engaged.

One example is available in this article from Women’s Agenda.  In it Editor Jane Gilmore writes about how the death of a women, murdered by a man, was described poorly by a newspaper.  The headline removes the perpetrator from the action.

“…. the article headline read:

Townsville police say selfie could have led to alleged stabbing murder

No. She wasn’t murdered by a selfie, she was murdered by a man who decided to stab her. She wasn’t murdered because she left her partner or started a new relationship, she was murdered because a man decided to stab her. It’s not relevant that a neighbour thought they were “happy together”, she was murdered because a man decided to stab her.”

When we write about workplace incidents be it for a blog, a safety alert or a corporate report it is important that we respect the victim and their relatives and their colleagues who may read our words.  This is over and above the review of a safety alert or report undertaken by the legal department and the communications professionals.

Gilmore identified how easy it is to include extraneous details in a report that can deflect the focus of the report. Writing, and speaking, carefully about workplace incidents can set the tone about how an investigation is conducted, how the grief over the loss of a worker is managed or how that event is perceived in years to come.

Gender

Part of the outrage in Gilmore’s article is that sloppy reporting indicates an entrenched ideology that downplays the significance of family violence incidents. Similar outrage is often heard by the relatives of workers who have died at work.

In many ways, gender is purposely removed from the reporting and investigation of many workplace incidents as it is not seen as relevant or is downplayed often because of the uncertainty and  inexperience of the investigators. Gender should always be considered as one of the many potential contributory factors in any incident as gender is a neutral concept and can apply equally to men as it does to women. Even though the concept of gender has been refined, some would say developed, by feminists, its relevance is to both sexes and the power relationships between people. More on gender and OHS is available HERE.

As OHS professionals and associations develop their communication strategies and engage with more and more people through social media and new technologies, language is gaining greater significance not less.  This need for care is not in the traditional, formal way of trying to avoid defamation and the legal costs and penalties associated with that.  We must consider the sociological context where our words generate or affect norms and values in ways we may not have intended.

Just as OHS professionals can cause offence, we can create positive safety and organisational cultures by our words and our deeds.

Kevin Jones