I have written before about the economics of safety and the way neo-liberalism puts the poor and disadvantaged at greater risk of harm (https://safetyrisk.net/freedom-to-harm-the-gig-economy-and-zero/).
When it comes to psychosocial well-being and mental health, disadvantage increases.
Recent research demonstrates that the less fortunate in our society suffer harm at a much greater rate that those who are ‘well off’ (https://theconversation.com/for-richer-but-not-for-poorer-how-australias-mental-health-system-fails-those-most-in-need-243370). We also know that First Nations people are at even greater risk of harm.
In the silly Safety approach to psychosocial health that views mental health as a ‘hazard’ there is no mention of economic well-being as a critical risk. What Safety wants is the easy stuff, ‘shift an object and psychosocial health will improve’. What utter nonsense.
Whoever thought up the idea that psychosocial health is about ‘hazards’, is a complete moron. The language of ‘hazards’ associated with psychosocial health has set back the safety industry 50 years.
What Safety has done in this development, is create a much bigger problem that previously existed (https://safetyrisk.net/what-is-psychosocial-safety/). When it comes to psychosocial health, the last discipline you’d want to put close to this wicked problem is Safety. There is no curriculum in safety to address this problem and the best outcome is to keep safety right away from the issue.
The idea that traditional safety language can be applied to mental health such as ‘hazards’ and ‘hierarchy of controls’ demonstrates just how incompetent and irrelevant Safety is in the workplace.
According to the research, those coming from a background of disadvantage to the workplace are most likely to be harmed. What does Safety say about that? Nothing!
According to the research, those from lower socio-economic background are most likely to experience distress in the workplace. What does Safety say about that? Nothing!
Unless one includes political, economic, social and psychological factors in understanding psychosocial health, whatever is done in the name of safety, is window-dressing.
The idea that fixing ‘hazards’ fixes mental health, is a joke!
The gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ is something Safety doesn’t talk about.
Of course, in safety=zero, all that matters is physical injury rates. As long as we can get down to zero, everything is safe. Don’t mind the bullying and brutalism that needs to be served out to persons in order to get there.
And what economic sector does the highest risk work? What economic sector produces the highest number of fatalities? And, mental health issues? Those at greatest economic disadvantage.
As long as safety=zero there will never be any attempt to be holistic about risk (https://safetyrisk.net/safetyzero-culture/).
As long as Safety frames its identity through injury rates, ‘hazards’ and ‘controls’. It will never properly address harm.
And where do we find the ideology of zero (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/) most dominant? Of course, in sectors with the greatest economic disadvantage.
And make sure, that the sectors with the greatest risk, highest disadvantage and lowest literacy are fed this zero garbage on a daily basis. And then call it ‘professional’.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- How to Escape the Safety=Zero Cult - January 14, 2025
- Making Sure There is No ‘Cultural Shift’ in Safety - January 14, 2025
- How to Make Ensure That People Don’t Speak Up - January 13, 2025
- It’s Not a Secret, We Just Don’t Talk About It - January 11, 2025
- Myth, Objectivity and the Subjectivity of Language in Safety - January 11, 2025
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below