Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) has released its small business blueprint. The document continues the misunderstanding of industry and business groups in respect to occupational health and safety (OHS) and red tape.
The “Small business. Big opportunities” document continues to show OHS as a burden rather than an opportunity. The chapter that discusses “high level of
labour market adaptability and flexibility” includes this recommendation:
“Simplify existing workplace relations legislation applying to small business, without removing the intent of regulations to provide safe, fair, productive and successful workplaces.
Small business currently needs to comply with numerous
substantial pieces of legislation (for example, taxation,
superannuation, OHS, equal opportunity and corporations law) that can act as a major disincentive to growth, employment and investment.” (page 10)
Previous SafetyAtWorkBlog articles have highlighted how inaccurate and unfair it is to include OHS obligations with other laws, such as taxation, as they have fundamentally different origins. OHS laws are not a “major disincentive to growth, employment and investment”. Such a disincentive is often self-imposed by the effort expended on avoiding those legislative obligations and on pushing the compliance band of “reasonably practicable” from workplace safety to the reduction of liability and avoidance of accountability.
The call to simplify OHS laws is a regular one from the business sector but the laws – the Act and Regulations – seem simpler than they have ever been. Business owners’ lack of understanding of OHS and its role is often a major impediment to growth. There is much research that shows that the integration of OHS in the design phases of a project or in the establishment of a business, minimises business costs over the (not-so) long term. Trying to retrofit OHS to an existing production or management system is infinitely more expensive than working WITH safety from the start. It is important to differentiate the costs of OHS being made to fit an existing system to OHS being applied as part of the initial business design.
In a way, VECCI acknowledges the importance of OHS in the starting of any business. In this report, VECCI recommends Government:
“Establish a new low cost Business Foundations short course program – delivered by industry – that enables SME start-ups to acquaint themselves with the fundamental prerequisites needed to establish and operate a small business, ranging from basic sales and marketing, HR and workplace OHS obligations, basic accounting and cash-flow, tax management, credit management, customer service, meeting government requirements and business planning.” (page 14)
As VECCI is also a training organisation, this recommendation is a little self-serving. (Interestingly, the important “foundation” of industrial relations is not included) It also tries to achieve too much, making the course too complex even if it focuses on the “fundamental prerequisites”.
In its discussion on indirect business costs, VECCI recommends the Victorian Government
“Accelerate the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 which sunset in 2017 and set a target for a 15 per cent reduction in the regulatory burden. Such a reform could consolidate Victoria’s position as having the safest workplaces in Australia at the lowest average cost to business.” (page 20)
There is no justification for the government to bring forward its review of OHS laws particularly if Victoria already has “the safest workplaces in Australia at the lowest average cost to business”. This statement is a curious inclusion in VECCI’s report. It acknowledges Victoria’s position as having the safest workplaces (debatable but…) which undercuts its calls for reform. Victoria seems to have the safest workplaces despite the red tape burden!
VECCI also states that this high level of safety has been achieved at “the lowest average cost to business”?? So where’s the problem? If OHS in Victorian businesses is in this state, why change, other than for ideological purposes?
Also, how can one measure any reduction of red tape in a percentage? Red tape has a notoriously fluid definition seemingly being applied to whatever piece of bureaucracy and regulation one dislikes at the time.
Two years ago, SafetyAtWorkBlog wrote
“The reality may be that employers perceive workplace safety as onerous and generating red tape when it may be that the administration of safety systems is poorly understood or badly managed or handled by inexperienced and poorly qualified safety people or handled as an add-on to another role such as that of a part-time paymaster (a real situation).”
The business sector’s approach to OHS doesn’t seem to have changed but at least one organisation is trying to improve the reliability of OHS advice through a certification process. The Safety Institute of Australia’s certification process seems clunky and will need to prove itself upon its introduction in a couple of months but it has potential.
Victoria’s business sector and industry groups, like VECCI, need to acknowledge that they, themselves, can reduce red tape and its costs by advocating the application of OHS in a business process when it has the most potential for harm reduction and the least cost impact, rather than urging government to do something. It is curious that organisations that trust the marketplace continue to lobby government to change things that can be changed without government intervention. Many small business operators are proud of what they have achieved without government support or financial assistance yet one of their lobbyists/representatives keeps expecting government to help.
Australian business groups would be serving their members better by talking about the cost savings of appropriate safety management rather than the costs to business from picking up the pieces and avoiding responsibility.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
