The recent tragic loss of life and house fires due to a deregulated labour market in the insulation industry and poor health and safety must not be repeated nationally.
But DPM Gillard is ruthlessly pushing ahead with her lower national OHS ‘harmonisation’ model approved December 2009, despite major union criticism (see earlier blogs).
One feature of the 2007 election was the Howard government and capitalist press underestimated the underground organising force of the YRAW community campaign. I argue the same for the Rudd government for OHS in this election year.
As readers know I am an admirer of our DPM. But I do question certain of her decisions.
DPM Gillard is aware of previous resolutions carried by unions, ACTU Executive and Congress and State branches that State and ACT OHS standards are to be maintained in this national ‘harmonisation’.
(Like many, I cringe at the use of ‘harmonisation’ used often by e.g bullying work managers or the Communist Party of China against dissidents.)
The ACTU has been campaigning, largely unsuccessfully up until December 2009, on the key principle that ‘harmonisation’ must not reduce protections and rights for workers and their unions.
By December 2009 this did not happen.
Minister Gillard was not moved by union substantial evidence-based criticisms and ACTU dissent.
But by march 2010 national OHS politics changes.
What does the Minister do after Garrett and the workplace deaths?
We shall see how this goes for insulation.
But prevention of deaths and injuries at work is now a national political issue.
What the DPM has to be aware of is that union OHS activists, trainers and union organisers as well as the community, and working families and OHS business and professional specialists are even more determined to place the lives of workers before profits.
The community supports at government implementation level not to have injury and ill-health and death at or in connection with your employment.
The DPM’s disgraceful National OHS model politically is in trouble.
Its structure provides for less compliance, for legal loopholes for employers to avoid responsibility, laxer standards and for profits to be priority over lives and health at work (see earlier posts).
We can say that many deaths at work are inevitable.
Some in the unions refer to the DPM as ‘Killard.’
These weak national OHS ‘harmonisation’ regulations does little to hold back, let alone prevent, the worst capitalists’ practices.
Business already bears only 3% of the total costs of work related illness and injury, with 97% borne by workers, their families and the community.
The National model focus on further cost reduction is fundamentally flawed.
(Some fudge by claiming capitalism’s practices as excuses, that management risk strategies and Ministerial responsiblity has its limits within capitalism’s growth and profit imperatives.)
Union activists reject Governments’ approaches to ‘harmonisation’, as the outcome is a dismantling of legal protections (legislation, regulations and codes) which have been developed over many years with the aim of protecting the lives and health of workers.
Governments committed to a 10 year strategy to reduce injuries, this will be unobtainable it these decreased protections are adopted.
The widespread support for greater OHS compliance, not less, means the ACTU Executive can condemn the DPM and State Governments for failing to honour undertakings that OHS ‘harmonisation’ would not result in lower standards and reduced protections for workers.
The OHS 2010 campaign is necessary to meet union objectives and by ensuring we work at all levels of the union movement in a coordinated way.
Essential provisions not in OHS model.
1. Elected Worker Health and Safety Rep rights/powers
a. HSR to have the power to issue to the employer a Provisional Improvement Notice and cease work upon election;
b. HSR to have choice of training provider;
c. HSR to notify employer with at least two weeks notice of intention to attend training.
d. Rights to number of training days as per the South Australian provisions.
2. Workers obligations: removal of reference to employer policy and procedures to be replaced with reference to workers knowledge;
3. The use of the loophole “so far as reasonably practicable†to be deleted;
4. Removal of the right of the regulator to disqualify HSR;
5. Risk management processes for all risks to be a Regulation, noting that is not in the Model WHS Act which is the ACTU policy position.
Risk management regulation must include requirements re consultation, review and monitoring of risks as well as application of the hierarchy of control;
6. Right of victims and their representatives to initiate prosecutions;
7. Genuine tripartisim.
As OHS laws largely reside in state jurisdictions, state Labor Councils (TLCs) and their affiliates are to campaign to influence the law or regulations and ensuring the important gains in each state and territory are not diminished by the national process.
Key unions have expertise and experience in specific areas of the regulations that relate to their industry and this expertise will be utilised in the process.
Union OHS resources have to improve. Greater consultation has to occur with and feedback to TLCs and Unions during the process of regulation review.
I have yet to see a 2010 analysis of the draft Model Act in relation to ACTU and State and territory TLCS which clearly outlines the shortfalls in standards. This analysis ought to be collated and made available as soon as possible.
Despite this election year politics,the ACTU can identify and provide to affiliates and TLCs a detailed timeframe of the regulation review to enable unions to provide quality feedback on proposals for change and state TLCs time to adequately lobby and influence state officials and campaigns to block draft legislation in state parliaments.
ACTU representatives ought to make it clear and have it recorded that we cannot endorse the Model WHS Act as our threshold issues have not been met.
The current drafts of the Administrative Regulations (which include requirements for HSR Elections, HSR training and Union right of Entry) and the Hazard Specific Regulations will provide lesser protections than exist in current law, are deregulatory and that this must be rectified as a matter of urgency.
Given the disease and cost burden caused by psychosocial risks (Productivity Commission Report 2009) ACTU representatives are to insist that psychological risks be addressed by regulation and supporting codes of practice.
Now is the time for an OHS YRAW. More to come…
yraw voting-badge
No comments yet.