Freedom to Harm, the Gig Economy and Zero
One of the jokes of the zero cult is its selective approach to harm. Injury rates are always calculated against definitions that suit political agendas. The zero cult doesn’t know it has a political agenda because the ideology of zero prizes itself on dumb, no vision. When your ideology is zero it is essential NOT to study Politics, Critical Theory, Cultural Theory or Ethics. No, no, no Transdisciplinarity for safety (https://safetyrisk.net/transdisciplinary-safety/).
When one enters the safety industry one is taught by omission (in curriculum) that safety is politically neutral/objective, this is nonsense. The politics and ethic of counting, numerics, objects and brutalism via zero ensures that the elephant in the room remains unseen. This is how one gets zero vision. Zero has a special way of infecting the industry with the virus of myopia. This is no more obvious than in the attitude of Safety to the gig economy.
The fatalities of online delivery workers is evidence of new slavery, similarly all workers in the ‘gig’ economy come from socioeconomic poverty and disadvantage (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-09/exclusive-uber-eats-dede-fredy-riders-deaths-families-speak-out/13118130 ; https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/in-australia-like-rest-of-world-the-gig-economy-is-killing-workers/ ). However, it seems the expendability and exploitation of these workers is not of much interest to Zero.
In the recent Parliamentary enquiry into the gig economy and safety of workers, there was no submission from any of the safety associations. The submission from Safe Work Australia was all about: itself, WHS law, data, compensation and Regulation but nothing of about an ethical or political argument against the gig economy. Safety has this weird idea that WHS carries no political or ethical imperative. If you want to find a political argument against the ‘freedom to harm’ you have to read the Transport Workers Union submission.
One of the best books to read on the nature of neo-liberalism and Laissez Faire economics is: McGarity, T., (2013) Freedom to Harm, The Lasting Legacy of Laissez Faire Revival. Yale University Press (https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bhht ). McGarity demonstrates how the ideology of neo-liberalism creates and sustains the ‘freedom to harm’ workers. I’m sure this text is on no WHS Curriculum. You can read more on how neoliberal ideology sanctions the freedom to harm here:
-
Welcome to the Gig Economy: neoliberal industrial relations and the case of Uber
-
Neoliberalism can reduce well-being by promoting a sense of social disconnection, competition, and loneliness
-
The gig economy – a shameful failure of the neoliberal project
-
The ethical debate about the gig economy: a review and critical analysis
-
WELL-BEING AND MENTAL HEALTH IN THE GIG ECONOMY
How fascinating this industry that loves to claim the label ‘professional’ and, at the same time the ideology of zero vision.
Zero vision and the ‘freedom to harm’ are closely connected, one sustains the other. If one were truly interested in zero harm one would be on the front foot against neoliberalism and its by-product ‘freedom to harm’. However, the last thing Zero wants to do is alienate political masters, neoliberal corporations and sponsors.
So, the darling of Zero is petty risk, slips, trips and falls. Every time safety runs a campaign this is the focus (https://safetyrisk.net/meerkat-mythology-in-safety/ ; https://safetyrisk.net/meerkat-safety-can-it-get-more-dumb/ ). Nothing is better to hide political reality than a petty distraction and this is what Zero does. When your ideology is zero, the by-product is pettiness.
Whilst the elephant in the room remains invisible, Zero is delighted. Zero is so busy counting the number of times it doesn’t achieve its goal it has no time for big picture issues in Ethics, Cultural tyranny or Politics.
This is also the fallacy the is foundational in nonsense like ‘1% safer’ (https://safetyrisk.net/1-safer-than-what/ ) and marginal gains (https://safetyrisk.net/the-fallacy-of-marginal-gains-and-nudges/ ). Every time Zero sucks one into its vortex the answer is always numbers (https://safetyrisk.net/its-always-a-number/ ) and petty risk (https://safetyrisk.net/petty-pissy-zero-harm/). When your discourse is framed by 1% you start looking for petty gains to prove the assumptions of your ideology.
How convenient this zero cult that draws people into pettiness the grand distraction from fatalities in the gig economy, freedom to harm indeed.
Rob Long says
I don’t find any of this surprising. When you surrender to the ideology of zero all vision ceases.
As for the associations, most of what they do is a mono-disciplinary solidification of territory/kingdom with next to no ability to dialogue unless it is through the lens of zero, zero vision indeed. Nothing new, nothing imaginative, risk doesn’t make sense. Even when words like imagination, innovation and different are trotted out, the discourse remains the same.
All that Safety has left these days is marketing gerkins, hearding meerkats and call out to mums for safety.
There will be no reform or vision for anything in safety or any professionalism until zero is banished and critical thinking might be then ushered in.
Bernard Corden says
Dear Rob,
An excellent post that reinforces what I have been campaigning against over the past five years.
I did read the SWA submission, which was merely a transcript of its About Us page on their website.
There were no submissions from any farming produce industry associations and not too much covering the federal government JobActive Work for the Dole Scheme, which is lawless slavery and incongruous with Article 23 of the Declaration of Human Rights.
This is exacerbated by the federal government Seasonal Worker Program and its supplementary Pacific Labour Mobility scheme although the Migrant Workers Centre submission includes some pertinent recommendations
The reluctance to challenge this freedom to harm from our peak safety bodies including the AIHS and the NSCA is astonishing.