Comments on: Sexual harassment and occupational health and safety

By: Workplace bullying needs harmony and good managers « SafetyAtWorkBlog

Workplace bullying needs harmony and good managers « SafetyAtWorkBlog — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:12:38 +0000

[…] Blake Dawson’s Jan Dransfield is reported as saying the overlapping of state and federal laws confuse employers on the issue. Significantly Dransfield points out that harassment includes bullying but is defined independently. This is an important point as recently some OHS training video companies have been promoting videos on the theme of harassment as workplace bullying products, further confusing the issues. (SafetyAtWorkBlog discusses sexual harassment and OHS elsewhere). […]

By: HR vs. OHS « Safety At Work Blog

HR vs. OHS « Safety At Work Blog — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:05:38 +0000

[…] safety culture, workers compensation, workplace on January 27, 2009 at 7:05 am I have written elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog concerning the silo mentality of managers in relation to human resources and […]

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:26:19 +0000

In reply to Cath. Cath That scenario needs to be put to a legal adviser but those sorts of process clearly identify why bullying can lead to health and safety issues such as stress and depression.

By: Cath

Cath — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 04:25:20 +0000

You have identifed another point, that HR are compromised. Who then is mean to stand up and support the victim? EEO? HR??? And what about when manipulation and politics start to play. HR must remain impartial.
A separate question, what recourse does a victim have when they have been defamed in the proceess? eg; When complaint made about bully (that has been well witnessed and documented), then bully has right of reply and fearing their job loss they lash out (nothing to lose attitude) creating extreme vexatious lies and malice intent, and HR does nothing about this, they actually now believe the bully, even when the vexatious can be proven. Does the victim have right to take this external for legal recourse against bully under Defamation Act? And what about the employer negligence for allowing this, and failing proper investigation?

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:24:13 +0000

Cath
I think you are a bit harsh on the HR fraternity but I would support any investigation into bullying from a broad perspective. Many of the studies are undertaken through, or as a result of, HR processes and a multi-disciplinary approach could provide better results.
I think that some of the sociological investigations into OHS and bullying have the greatest chance of achieving change.
Many HR officers are very close to CEO\’s or Board members and this may be a negative but it also a position of influence that OHS professionals should aim for. The \”trick\” is to achieve such a position without sacrificing integrity and that needs to be a quality that the organization itself needs to value and promote.

By: Cath

Cath — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:09:40 +0000

Thanks for posting this, you have a great blog please keep up the good work, it is a useful tool of information. You are right about the divide between HR & OHS. Fact is HR are the culprits of negligence, they exist to support Management. Any one with a serious complaint thinks long and hard before sticking their neck out and going to HR, but unfortunately as we all know it is all a numbers game (who has most support) and political (easier to get rid of the victim, rather than the bully).
HR must be outted as incompetant and different independant organisations should run any investigation in to OHS violations, this includes having expert organisational psychologists on board to clearly identify psychopathic behaviour and its implications, so to communicate this back to the company. The victim is the victim, the harasser-bully-psychopath is a harasser-bully-psychopath.

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:31:39 +0000

Matthew

Thanks for reading the blog and commenting.

In my experience HR and OHS are almost always managed as separate disciplines – \”silos\” to use management jargon. This is a poor management structure which is supported by the dominant attitudes of both professions.

Also, Australia does not have much of a history in seeing worker safety as a human rights issue. This is a regrettable omission and one which I can\’t see improving at all. Primarily this is due to the human rights sector being distracted by the push for a human rights charter.

I am in favour of increased attention to human rights and the charter however, in Australia the proposed charter is already being applied to what many consider frivolous applications, exactly the activities that have led to criticism of the charter in Europe and the UK. An example of this at the moment is the case of some squatters in a University of Melbourne building invoking human rights to remain in their squat. (http://www.theage.com.au/national/students-invoke-human-rights-to-fight-eviction-20081222-73ny.html)

Human rights is not a concept that should be applied rashly. It is a concept that underpins OHS, HR and IR but is rarely invoked in Australia in these disciplines. It should be.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:12:14 +0000

Thanks for posting on this, I think the major issue with this will come down to management and HR handling of the complaint. 110% of the time they support the attacker, and not the victim. The all must be taught that it is easier to alienate the victim and run them out of town? Let us hope that HREOC has the victim always in their sights, male or female.

By: Sexual harassment and politicians « Safety At Work Blog

Sexual harassment and politicians « Safety At Work Blog — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:22:11 +0000

[…] conduct at work can be criminal, a breach of OHS legislation or, even, a contravention of our Human Rights obligations. That the Australian political parties tolerate such behaviour is shameful ▶ Comment […]