Hi Grant,
I just got around to checking out the link in your comment above.
I fully understand the concept of a \’charter of rights\’ but I am at a loss to understand why such a document should be so one sided.
There is much about the Workers\’ rights and Employers\’ responsibilities but what about the inverse – worker responsibility and Employer rights?
I have long held the the idea that every right has an associated responsibility and every responsibility has an associated right – see my first comment above.
I am aware of the age old differential in power between employer and workers but that doesn\’t negate the need to recognise that employers should have rights too. See also my first comment above re the worker who took an unncessary risk and injured herself despite her employer\’s attempts to prevent same.
Further, I fail to see how a right to \”Travel to and from work in safety and with appropriate protections\” can placed as a responsiblity on employers. Surely EVERY ROAD USER, along with EVERY BUS OR TRAIN USER – whether travelling to work or not – should have that right and yet, as road, bus and train users, the majority of us take unncessary risks and are exposed to the behaviours of others placing us at risk and which behaviours employers have abslutely no control over.
Let\’s get real and place responsibilities in appropriate places, and take responsibility for ourselves, before we start demanding rights from others who cannot grant them.

Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 14th of March this year, in my first Ministerial statement on workplace health and safety in this place, I said that every Australian who goes to work should return home safely.

I know both sides of the House endorse this universal, human right. \”

I\’m sure you won\’t be surprised to know that I support a charter of workplace rights – here\’s one …

http://www.ohsrep.org.au/storage/documents/VTHC_OHS_Charter.pdf

Kevin, we may be looking at that issue of safe workplace/work environment differently –

For as long as I have been \’doing\’ OHS (20+ years) I have always portrayed a \’job\’ or \’task\’ as something that is performed:
– in a \’place\’,
– using plant/substance and
– following a process
– by people.
A Job Safety Analysis (JSA) then should include a review of the surrounding environment as well as the immediate workspace for things that might \’bite\’ the worker while they are focussed on the work.

Even the new law requires PCBUs to ensure [s19(3)(a) the provision and maintenance of a work environment without risks to health and safety]. This is not significantly different in NSW to the old law at this point except for \’reasonable practicability\’.

I don\’t see that as diminishing the concept of workplace/work environment. Rather I see it as expanding the concept that the \’workplace/work environment\’ IS wherever the work takes place.

The change in the law simply expands the concept to include beyond the boundaries of the property that the employer (PCBU) has immediate control over.

Again, this is a useful view in my current role as our workers take clients with disabilities into community settings such as parks, shopping centres, swimming pools, bowling alleys and even sailing lakes – hence our employees\’ workplaces/work environments ARE those community settings. And how can this PCBU provide and maintain safe work enviornments in such places?
And many of our clients have behavioural issues and so we only ever have marginal or notional control over some risks in these \’workplaces\’.

So, accordingly, we document risk assessments on transport/locations/actvities/client disability constraints, etc in order to maximise safety for all involved.
It isn\’t rocket science – it just takes a little effort.

On the issue of what is safety and a safe working environment, I think the OHS harmonisation in Australia has sidestepped this question be putting the focus on the work being done rather than the place in which it occurs. This seems to have taken workplace out of safety consideration or, at least, granted it far less relevance than it previously. I think that the various reviews found that the \”old\” focus on workplace created an artificial delineation between public safety and work safety that the nature of work, and the hazards associated with that work, had shown to be anomalous. The new focus on work is an attempt to change our understanding of safety and generate control measures that the changing nature of work.

I think the discussion of safety as a \”human right\” may also require a parallel discussion of \”human responsibilities\”. The Victorian Charter title includes both rights and responsibilities. Perhaps, my article should have reflected this. Next time.

Bency, I echo Les\’ comments. History has proven that self-regulation of workplace safety, and human dignity, has not worked and that laws are required to reflect society\’s humanitarian values.

Dori Barreiros, PhD – Brazil