Reflection on ‘Worker Health First’
This is purely opinion and a self reflection. When I say “you” or “we”, I’m referring to myself.
‘Worker Health First’ is the quintessential ethos of occupational hygiene. For me, it is more than a mere belief, it’s a tightly held conviction. I think it’s in part rooted in the idea that workers, particularly those exposed to hazardous environments, are the reason we have a functioning society. I feel we owe workers in manufacturing, constructor labourers, sanitation workers, famers, mechanics, cleaners (and so on.) a societal debt. They may be properly compensated for their time, efforts and skills but does this then negate their right to “just and favourable conditions”? Besides, these workers are the reason most of us have jobs ourselves. They could continue to work without us, but not we without them.
However, businesses and decision makers do not share the same ideology. They are required to balance a plethora of business considerations. There are many safety professionals sceptical of any organisation touting Safety First. You may be one of them. Opinions range from these businesses being misguided, to disingenuous, to downright delusional. How can a company in a capitalist economy possibly prioritise safety over output and profitability - the defining purpose of a business? Can an organisation, as distinct from the individuals within, even have ethics? Or is WHS purely a function to prevent legal and reputational damage? Perhaps I am the sceptic. Regardless, it seems self-evident that safety is not, and cannot, always be the priority. Compromises must be made.
So where does that leave me (and maybe you) as an individual? I have an internal conflict between what I believe is in the best interest of workers and what I see a business is willing to do. How do you reconcile this conflict?
I have learnt first-hand that stamping feet, crossing arms and scowling that the anything short of best practise is often unproductive. Don’t get me wrong, I still think I was right. But evidently, slow, compromising progression appears to better for workers than staunch deontology. Perhaps the best that can be done is to act as that balancing pressure on the business. Having said that, I don’t think one should enter into the conversation with a prepared mind of pragmatism and empathy. ‘Conceding ground’ before starting means sacrificing the end point. Note that doesn’t mean being combative, like I was. It’s having expectations that people will want to do what is best for workers. Will this lead to disappointment? Sure. But if you are aware and intentional, then I think the trade-off is worth it.
Of course influencing change is far more complex than mindset. In order to have the best chance of successfully shaping a safe work environment, occupational hygienists must understand and account for the wider organisation context. Precise and highly technical advice may obscure messaging to the point where a non-technical manager is unable to reliably evaluate the prioritisation of investments or improvement strategies. With a lack of confidence in their understanding, worker health initiatives may in fact be further de-prioritised. We can’t always make the decision for the manager, but we can provide the advice communicated clearly with sufficient contextual information to allow them to make better decisions for their workers’ health.
And still, there remains a conflict between the duty to protect worker health, and the compromises necessary to (eventually) fulfil that duty. From this reflection I feel it’s better to not reconcile these feelings. That living with this tension will make me a better and more ethical hygienist. I hope.