Psychological injury claims at work are on the rise and that’s not the sign of a healthy system. Photo: Fizkes.
Last week, Comcare held its national conference for two days in Canberra, with the theme of ‘collaboration for prevention and change’.
The program was well-considered and comprehensive, complete with a list of compelling speakers and informative presentations.
Of the news coverage Region did for the conference, the most widely read report was the one titled Psychological injury claims on the rise across the public sector.
It was one of the most popular stories across the board in Riotact and PSNews last week.
Reader comments attached to the article reveal quite a high level of engagement with the topic and an array of varying opinions. So with the news of it duly reported, here, in this op-ed, I am going to offer up an opinion on the subject – and not everyone is going to agree.
My opinion? Work-related psychological illness is definitely a real thing, but the system is being rorted. It’s out of control.
There are jobs where the work involved poses a high chance of mental injury.
Emergency services, first attenders, military, law enforcement, and those whose work it is to peruse unthinkable images in order to try and prevent further atrocities from occurring.
The list is longer than that and can be added to, but suffice to say, some jobs almost invite a psychosocial impact – and in some cases, even post-traumatic stress disorder.
But when a public servant submits a compensation claim to insist they have been psychologically injured because they lack clarity in their role, or because a supervisor expressed frustration that their work had missed a deadline, or because they’re not getting enough recognition, then something is wrong with the system.
When these claims are taken far more seriously than they should be, it’s a sign something is seriously broken.
And when laws are enacted to ensure an endless stream of frivolous claims, it’s a sign of a government with its eye off the main game.
A psychosocial hazard is regarded as anything that could cause psychological harm, or in other words, something that could damage someone’s mental health.
That definition is almost open slather, resulting in some employees unscrupulously exploiting such vagueness and getting away with it.
‘Psychological justice’ is another term being bandied about without anyone – least of all those who are supposedly enforcing it – appearing to understand what it actually means.
It’s not only in the public sector, of course.
I know of a middle manager in an overly woke private sector firm who was informed by their boss that someone had said they felt ‘psychologically unsafe’ being in their team.
When the middle manager asked the boss what that meant, the reply was, “Who knows, but we’re going to have to send you on a people management course”.
At least in the public sector, attempts are being made to educate managers on what psychological harm might actually be.
Still, I receive numerous reports of APS managers having to step away from their actual work for days in order to answer a single allegation of psychological harm.
Instead of serving the public, they are being forced to serve the system and scrutinise every correspondence between them and their complainant – emails, texts, meeting notes, verbal instructions, casual encounters – and complete lengthy reports on all of it in order to prove they hadn’t been out of line.
All the while, they are being told by their own supervisors that “we know you haven’t done anything wrong”.
Don’t get me wrong – there’s no place for bullies in the workplace and those who are should be called out and held to account.
Bullies most certainly can and do inflict psychological harm.
As reported, the term ‘psychosocial disease’ is being increasingly heard right across the public sector and compensation claims for psychological injury are on the rise.
Comcare is doing the right thing – it is trying to educate the service to prevent the risk of psychological harm in the first place.
Almost a whole conference was dedicated to it.
Comcare has the numbers and knows that it’s much cheaper for taxpayers and a far better outcome on all fronts if proper preventive steps are taken to protect people’s mental health.
As Comcare’s scheme manager Michael Duke told last week’s conference: “Mental health issues are now the most prevalent types of claims.”
Psychologists in the workplace do add value, particularly if prevention and help are the focus.
But a system structured around conflict, blame and payouts is fraught.
I will wind up with this thoughtful comment submitted to me by Katrina Norris, director of the Australian Association of Psychologists – who clearly doesn’t agree with all the points I have just made (but a few, yes).
“When it comes to reducing claims and building psychologically healthy workplaces, prevention is key,” Dr Norris said.
“It is commendable of Comcare to prioritise prevention over other cost-cutting methods, such as restricting psychological claims criteria, as has been the approach across other jurisdictions.
“Implementing strong prevention campaigns and strategies requires clear definitions and understandings of the psychosocial hazards present in each workplace, which may vary across departments.
“Our hope is that the public service will utilise psychologists’ skills to build a strong culture of psychosocial health and well-being across their departments and agencies.”
Original Article published by Chris Johnson on Riotact.
