Currently I’m scheduled to speak at 1pm on the 23rd, my job is to keep people awake after their lunch 🙂 If anything changes I’ll let you know. Mike

Let me know when you are scheduled to speak

Certainly Kevin, here is the link https://whsshow.com.au/whats-on-melbourne

Please send through details of the education conference.

I think we have very similar Fathers with very similar accents (Cumbrian in my case). I’ve been asked to speak at the Workplace Health & Safety education conference in May on the topic of cooperation between HR and WHS, I’m looking forward to providing some ‘healthy unease’ around the topic. This is an issue to greater or lesser degrees with every client that I have.
Right, I’m off to get back to the chocolate 😉
Mike

Mike, we should both be in a post-Easter chocolate coma. What are we doing writing about OHS and mental health? 🙂 Perhaps this is evidence of my inability to turn OHS off. 🙁

The LinkedIn posts are essentially marketing for the SafetyAtWorkBlog subscriptions but is ineffective. People on LinkedIn, like most on the Internet, want free information even if it is dubious origin. LinkedIn is a clickthrough strategy. I could write my articles on LinkedIn but I suspect I would be relinquishing cownership and copyright. The occasional open access article seems to satisy the Google algorithms.

I fully support your integration approach but have yet to see it in practice. Recently a law seminar said that they are running many client sessions where all the psychosocial stakeholders are in the room and over a day’s training they develop that integrated strategy for the prevention and management of psychosocial hazards. I imagine some of that time, perhaps most it, is breaking the stigma and having each business element respect the others and acknowledge each other’s roles in the mental helath strategy. It’s probably what my Father would describe as “banging their bloody heads together” and “knocking some sense into them”. (I hear this in a Lancashire accent)

My impression is that the HR sand OHS disciplianes are as far apart on this hazard as they have ever been. I certainly see little cooperation between AHRI asnd AIHS, for instance.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. You effort reassures me that mine is also worthwhile.

Kevin

I wholeheartedly agree that any employer who believes MHFA will ensure compliance with their psychosocial health obligations is indeed delusional, as delusional as any employer who would believe that provision of workplace (physical) first aiders ensures compliance with all of their WHS responsibilities. Thankfully, I haven’t met that employer yet.

MHFA was originally designed as a community programme, and despite some tinkering with the material to include some ‘workplace’ scenarios, it is not an instrument to eliminate/reduce psychosocial risk at source, in the same way the introduction of workplace first aiders is not designed to prevent work related accidents and illnesses.

Both theses ‘first aid roles’ are firmly positioned in the administrative end of the hierarchy of controls, but that does not mean that they can’t add value as a component of a well-developed integrated risk management framework.
I have implemented many integrated strategies over the years and reviewed many more, and I have never seen a strategy that does not draw from all elements of the hierarchy of controls.

I often hear the argument (and have read the supporting reports) that MHFA at best, makes no positive difference to mental health in a workplace, and as a standalone activity, I would agree. But, I haven’t seen a report that examines the effectiveness of MHFA (and other such programs) as part of an integrated risk management program. If it exists, please let me know.

I also hear the argument that employers would be much better off using the money spent on MHFA on investing in a strategic approach that seeks via a continuous improving methodology, to address poor job design and work planning that is all too often the cause of workplace burnout. The problem I see here is that Australian business in probably ten years away from this being an understood, accepted and (hopefully) practiced approach, and employers are feeling pressure/obligation to do something now. I agree with the sentiment here, we must always seek to prevent rather than cure, however I don’t think any of us can make sweeping statements as to precisely where an organisation should be allocating it’s budget until that organisation has a full understanding of their own existing psychosocial landscape.

I think at the end of the day, the academic narrative around the dubious credentials of MHFA is going to be largely overlooked by many employers. This is because when employers send people on the MHFA courses, the feedback from those attending is by and large extremely positive. But hold on, who are they to judge the effectiveness of this program? They are employees, HSR’s, supervisors and managers who will return to the workplace and be involved in the consultation processes. Their collective voices will always hold significant sway. That’s how the law designed our WHS ecosystem.

I’m not in any shape or form advocating a reliance on downstream controls over preventative controls, I just think we need to acknowledge that psychosocial risk management is much more complex to manage in today’s business world than good old traditional WHS ever was.

So, do I think MHFA is a good or a bad thing in relation to the workplace?
I think (as a MHFA instructor) that it needs an overhaul, particularly where a product is deemed as workplace relevant. It is certainly not a psychosocial silver bullet nor a risk prevention tool.
But I don’t think we should shoot it either. I do believe it educates people and gives them information and a better understanding about the causes and impacts of mental health in lay persons terms. The dreadful stigma that surrounds mental health is only reduced via education and enlightenment.
How can that be a bad thing?

Great article.

Mike