Several events or non-events at the recent 23rd World Congress on Safety and Health at Work illustrated the political attitude to occupational health and safety in Australia, especially the lack of presence of national figures on official duties.
Long working hours have been identified as a major contributor to poor workplace mental health. International benchmarks have been identified as tipping points for mental health. A local Australian initiative to highlight the risks associated with overwork is Go Home on Time Day, which The Australia Institute supports.
Fewer companies than when the day started in 2009 seem to be supporting and promoting the day in their wellbeing calendars. Perhaps because the day identifies the shameful fact that employers will not stop workers from working long hours “if the workers choose to” even though the evidence is that the practice is harmful.
Its working hours calculator is a major part of the Go Home on Time Day initiative.
Rory O’Neill was a member of a panel at the 23rd World Congress for Safety and Health at Work, ostensibly, about Safety in Design in high-risk industries. It is fair to say he was expansive, engaging and provocative. It was a rare opportunity to hear him speak in person. Below are some examples of his challenging and, in some ways, traditional approach to occupational health and safety (OHS).
Racism is a word increasingly thrown around these days, the most current incarnation being in the controversy surrounding whether or not to allow Australia’s indigenous peoples a formalised Voice to Parliament.
Unfortunately, Australia has no patent on this illogical and offensive tendency. In Asia, it is often aimed at other Asian races of what is perceived as lower social class.
The working from home (WFH) phenomenon seems established for white-collar and administration workers but the anger, protests and disappointment from businesses and landlords continues.
The Australian Industry Group (AIGroup) has published an article intended to rebuild trust between workers and employers and is based on a “Tight Loose Tight” concept. It seems to make sense and maybe moreso to its intended audience but it is missing essential integration.
A recent Crikey article quotes a Qantas pilot saying “you pay peanuts, you get monkeys”. Australian businesses are gfighting asgainst wage increases, so they must want to employ “monkeys”.
Australia is engaging in its ritual industrial relations (IR) arguments about productivity, pay and conditions. Business concerns are that the IR changes will increase business costs beyond the point of sustainability (ie. Profitability), as always. Trade unions want improved worker pay and conditions.
