WorkSafe Qld provides some tips on how to stay healthy and keep moving.
Many workers spend a large part of their working day sitting, including administrative and call centre workers, as well as people in particular areas of sales and manufacturing. This is defined as sedentary work and it involves prolonged periods of inactivity, and an absence of whole body movement.
Even if workers manage to undertake their recommended 30 minutes of active exercise a day, if they still remain sedentary for the rest of the day, they will have an increased risk of health problems.
The human body is designed for movement and should alternate between sitting, standing and activities, such as walking, regularly throughout the day.
Benefits of moving
Benefits of sitting less and moving more include:
lower risk of musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and injury, particularly of the lower back and neck
reduced risk of chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes
lower risk of eye strain or fatigue
healthy maintenance of the circulatory system and digestive tract.
It is important to consider both a mix of design and work organisation improvements to make sure workers are well supported to reduce risks associated with sedentary work.
In the wake of the crash, investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), the lead investigation agency, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will be trying to determine why the aircraft lost power and was unable to be flown to a safe landing.
As part of the aircraft’s type certification it is required to be able to maintain a minimum 5% climb gradient following the failure of the critical engine on take-off. This means it should have been able to at least climb over local obstacles, and circle around for a landing.
So a key question in the minds of investigators will be the reasons why this particular aircraft on this occasion wasn’t able to achieve this.
If the malfunction was related to only one engine, there has to have been some other factor degrading the aircraft’s single engine performance.
Maybe the engine that failed did not auto-feather, or could not be feathered by the pilot. This is where the prop blades on the failed engine are rotated to produce minimal drag, allowing the plane to perform better with only one engine operating.
If the failed engine didn’t feather correctly, it could have resulted in the windmilling propeller producing significant additional drag and seriously affecting aircraft controllability.
Or perhaps a much more insidious problem occurred causing full or significant partial power loss on both engines, presenting the pilot with an extreme emergency situation to manage. If that were the case, there would have to have been a common failure affecting both engines, such as a fuel quality, fuel starvation or an engine management issue.
The investigators will be clearly interested in the engines, propellers and fuel systems. They will also be exploring all the aircraft’s other systems, such as avionics, flight management computers, airframe and flight controls, looking for any evidence of malfunction or anomaly that could have contributed to the cause of the crash.
Investigators will also have a focus on all the possible human factors issues. The pilot’s response to the emergency will be examined and any factors, such as fatigue, illness or health issues that could have contributed will be explored.
The investigation will be conducted as a systematic and scientific process. Everything that could have contributed to the cause of the crash will be considered. Many will be discounted. Some will inevitably be proven.
The investigators findings will be solely based on the evidence from the wreckage, and from analysis of evidence external to the aircraft, such as maintenance documentation, air traffic control recordings, available film footage and, not least, the observations of the witnesses.
The investigation will be an arduous and exacting task given the apparent fragmentation of the aircraft and the post crash fire. However, I believe ATSB investigators are among the best in the world and I have no doubt they’ll reveal the causal sequences that led to this accident, so that any lessons can be learned and corrective actions implemented to prevent recurrences.
Aviation is the safest means of transport in no small part due to the work of air safety investigators who shed light on the causes of those accidents which do occur. This accident will continue that tradition, I’m certain.
It is often said that our approach to health and safety has gone mad. But the truth is that it needs to go scientific. Managing risk is ultimately linked to questions of engineering and economics. Can something be made safer? How much will that safety cost? Is it worth that cost?
Decisions under uncertainty can be explained using utility, a concept introduced by Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli 300 years ago, to measure the amount of reward received by an individual. But the element of risk will still be there. And where there is risk, there is risk aversion.
Risk aversion itself is a complex phenomenon, as illustrated by psychologist John W. Atkinson’s 1950s experiment, in which five-year-old children played a game of throwing wooden hoops around pegs, with rewards based on successful throws and the varying distances the children chose to stand from the pegs.
The risk-confident stood a challenging but realistic distance away, but the risk averse children fell into two camps. Either they stood so close to the peg that success was almost guaranteed or, more perplexingly, positioned themselves so far away that failure was almost certain. Thus some risk averse children were choosing to increase, not decrease, their chance of failure.
So clearly high aversion to risk can induce some strange effects. These might be unsafe in the real world, as testified by author Robert Kelsey, who said that during his time as a City trader, “bad fear” in the financial world led to either “paralysis… or nonsensical leaps”. Utility theory predicts a similar effect, akin to panic, in a large organisation if the decision maker’s aversion to risk gets too high. At some point it is not possible to distinguish the benefits of implementing a protection system from those of doing nothing at all.
So when it comes to human lives, how much money should we spend on making them safe? Some people prefer not to think about the question, but those responsible for industrial safety or health services do not have that luxury. They have to ask themselves the question: what benefit is conferred when a safety measure “saves” a person’s life?
The answer is that the saved person is simply left to pursue their life as normal, so the actual benefit is the restoration of that person’s future existence. Since we cannot know how long any particular person is going to live, we do the next best thing and use measured historical averages, as published annually by the Office of National Statistics. The gain in life expectancy that the safety measure brings about can be weighed against the cost of that safety measure using the Judgement value, which mediates the balance using risk-aversion.
The Judgement (J) value is the ratio of the actual expenditure to the maximum reasonable expenditure. A J-value of two suggests that twice as much is being spent as is reasonably justified, while a J-value of 0.5 implies that safety spend could be doubled and still be acceptable. It is a ratio that throws some past safety decisions into sharp relief.
For example, a few years ago energy firm BNFL authorised a nuclear clean-up plant with a J-value of over 100, while at roughly the same time the medical quango NICE was asked to review the economic case for three breast cancer drugs found to have J-values of less than 0.05.
Risky business. Shutterstock
The Government of the time seemed happy to sanction spending on a plant that might just prevent a cancer, but wanted to think long and hard about helping many women actually suffering from the disease. A new and objective science of safety is clearly needed to provide the level playing field that has so far proved elusive.
Putting a price on life
Current safety methods are based on the “value of a prevented fatality” or VPF. It is the maximum amount of money considered reasonable to pay for a safety measure that will reduce by one the expected number of preventable premature deaths in a large population. In 2010, that value was calculated at £1.65m.
This figure simplistically applies equally to a 20-year-old and a 90-year-old, and is in widespread use in the road, rail, nuclear and chemical industries. Some (myself included) argue that the method used to reach this figure is fundamentally flawed.
In the modern industrial world, however, we are all exposed to dangers at work and at home, on the move and at rest. We need to feel safe, and this comes at a cost. The problems and confusions associated with current methods reinforce the urgent need to develop a new science of safety. Not to do so would be too much of a risk.
This Safe Work Australia film features three different perspectives on how workplace leaders can design good work and influence their safety culture, not only in their own business, but across their supply chain and the broader community. This seminar features three business leaders from Australian Country Choice, Lend Lease and Toll NQX.
Leaders at all levels have a critical role to play in building a positive safe work culture, influencing safety improvements, and designing safe, healthy and productive work.
For many workplace leaders, the safety vision they are still working towards is focused on achieving an absence of injury. But there is so much more to be gained through creating a strong safety culture, including enhanced worker health and wellbeing and increased business success and productivity.
Who is this presentation for?
Regulators, industry representatives, worker representatives and leaders at all levels – from officers and CEOs to middle management and those with work health and safety or human resource functions.
Dr Simon Blackwood, Deputy Director General at the Department of Justice and Attorney General with the Queensland Government.
Jennie Hunter, Manager of Leadership and Culture with Workplace Health and Safety Queensland.
Worker compensation claims have been decreasing over time but this masks all kinds of problems with our wellbeing at work.
Making our workplaces healthier and safer means we have to confront all those things causing us stress at work. And that’s not going to be solved by standing desks, complimentary massage or lunchtime yoga.
LISTEN NOW > to the ABC RadioNational podcast of ‘WorkLife: Why is work making us sick?”
When working conditions are harsh, workers are more likely to find satisfaction through small acts of deviant behaviour instead of banding together or joining a union, my research shows.
I interviewed 30 unskilled workers from five different sites in the greater Brisbane region. The workers came from large, centralised retail, automotive and food wholesaler workplaces and were under strict instruction and surveillance. I asked them about how they manage and organise their shifts.
The people working in these precarious conditions often concealed anxieties or insecurities about the role that work performs in their life. Their insecurities, however, emerged through deviant practices and cynical or apathetic behaviours to work.
Deviant actions involved cutting corners, avoiding paperwork and often avoiding health and safety procedures. Workers operated subtly in order to avoid detection from management.
These activities proved useful to workers because they allowed deadlines and quotas to be met more easily, while simultaneously allowing them avenues to socialise and enjoy aspects of their work day. While workers readily acknowledged deviating from management directives, they also recognised the importance of being perceived as a “valuable” worker.
My analysis suggests that deviant practices were often implemented in order to achieve more existential security at work. Deviant practices were important to workers who felt exhausted, stressed, or who had limited social interaction at work.
Other research shows that merely the threat of precarious employment has negative effects of workers’ health. This can manifest in physical and physiological forms: heightened risk of depression, stress, exhaustion, sleeping disorders, headaches, and high blood pressure.
Workers in precarious environments can also become “urban nomads” as they are stripped of traditional community benefits that come with regular salaried work; benefits such as a sense of community and a loss of work-based identity. It’s the loss of this community that leaves precarious workers not just financially, but socially unstable.
The study suggests that workers were far more likely to game the system rather than slack off. So rather than resist work entirely, workers were resisting the negative and precarious aspects of work.
This resistance allowed workers more social time and benefits they wouldn’t otherwise receive. While this distinction is subtle, it is important; it suggests that work is still a valuable social experience for these workers even though their relationship to it is precariously positioned.
Precarious work can involve any number of environmental uncertainties that arise in work; however, the most significant appear to be a loss of paid leave entitlements and work benefits that occur with temporary employment.
Statistics from the United Kingdom suggest that one in five workers is employed under precarious work conditions. The statistics are much the same in Australia; the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) lists casual or temporary employment at 19% (equivalent to one in five workers).
However, unlike the UK, Australian rates of unionisation are much lower. OECD figures suggest that trade union density (as of 2014) in the UK was 25.1%, compared with Australia’s 15.5%.
This disparity suggests that while Australian workers are just as likely as UK workers to be without secure employment, Australian workers were less likely to have the social support that unions and other organisations can offer.
Although deviant behaviour appears to be a problem for management, it’s important to recognise its social and psychological effects on workers. In an economic space that offers temporary contracts and little to no social support, it seems logical for workers to seek social-security through other avenues in the workplace. Consequently, even small acts of resistance provide valuable mechanisms for employees.
The data from this research suggests that while workers create existential security, they often fail to address the precarious working conditions that give rise to insecure mindsets. So while workers today partake in the ageless ritual of working-class resistance, the absence of collective organisation (like in unions) appears to be particularly problematic.
The effects of precarious work and the construction of insecure workers is particularly important in our global age. Without collective action between workers, the re-integration of unions into the workforce or intervention from national governments, it seems that any localised resistance to precarious work will never be more than just what it is: localised.