Supply chains and responsibility for OHS management in the Western Australian resources sector

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse human resource supply chains and the responsibility of occupational health and safety (OHS) management using Australian evidence from two unrelated research studies in the resources sector. Design/methodology/approach - The analysis is based on additional findings from the research projects using qualitative case study methodologies. The paper draws on interviews with the underground mining manager in study 1 and the OHS manager in study 2, together with current literature on supply chains and OHS responsibility in Australia. Findings - The paper uses examples drawn from two research studies conducted in the resources sector in 2011 to present the notion that there has been a shift in responsibility and management of OHS from the top of the supply chain to the bottom. Research limitations/implications - The paper draws on two unrelated studies that investigated different issues in OHS management. There is a need to undertake specific research to confirm the argument that suggests that the OHS management systems are improving for the bottom of the human resources supply chain in the resources sector. Practical implications - Findings suggest that in the middle tier resources sector the bottom of the human resources supply chains have robust OHS management systems and induction training, contrary to the weakening of OHS management in typical supply chains in other sectors. Originality/value - Unlike manufacturing, healthcare, the public sector and transport, there is little research conducted in the resources sector researching supply chains and OHS management. This paper provides limited evidence of a differing picture in the resources sector than other industries; however, it argues that further studies should be conducted

Guest Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue on FIFO Work

This special edition of the Australian Bulletin of Labour is concerned with the recent and much-hyped phenomenon of Fly-In Fly-Out (FIFO) workers. We stress that our focus is on FIFO, not on the related question of work and employment in the resources sector, or on the broader impact of the resources sector on the regions and communities where it is located. There have been recent special editions of other journals on these matters: one assessing the impact of the Australian resources sector on rural societies (Rural Society 22, 2 2013) and another examining the dynamics and pattern of development in the Pilbara (Australian Geographer 44, 3 2013), as well as an inquiry—reported in 2013—undertaken by the Australian House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia (FHRE 2013)

Who cleans up? The declining earnings position of cleaners in Australia.

AbstractNeoliberal policies of industrial relations decentralisation and privatisation have transformed the economic landscape of Australia in the last 20 years. The primary objective of these policies has been to enhance wealth and prosperity by improving productivity and flexibility of the workforce and competition and accountability in the market. Yet the evidence suggests that precarious workers are not benefiting from this increased prosperity, indeed they suffer by comparison with all other workers. Cleaners are a subset of precarious workers who have been hard hit by the dual impacts of labour market decentralisation and privatisation. This study finds quantitative evidence of an increasing gap in earnings between cleaners and other workers in Australia since the onset of workplace relations decentralisation and the proliferation of privatisation in the mid 1990s. We locate our argument in recent debates about the nature of variegated neoliberalism, the emergence of the networked economy, and the implications of these developments for the nature of work and employment.</jats:p

Ecological modernisation, industry policy and the Australian automotive industry, 2007-13

Ecological modernisation (EM), in theory and practice, has increasingly become central to contemporary state environmental reform agendas. EM’s allure lies in its central tenet that the contemporary institutions of capitalism can be ecologically adapted to achieve ‘win–win’ economic and environmental outcomes. How government policy can best accomplish this aim is contested, however, with weak and strong EM approaches advocating different roles for the state in facilitating ecological restructuring. The latter approaches argue that for EM processes to be successful, state intervention via ecological industrial policy is required. This article makes a unique contribution to the industry policy and EM debate by assessing the manner in which EM was conceptualised and implemented within the Australian government’s automotive industry policy between 2007 and 2013. This analysis raises issues about the institutional capacity of states to pursue either weak or strong forms of EM

FIFO and global production networks: Exploring the issues

In this introductory article, we provide a context for subsequent articles in this special edition. We do not intend to provide a comprehensive overview of the costs and benefits of FIFO. This ground is covered in other articles here (see also Morris 2012). We argue that FIFO represents the third wave in a series of spatial fixes, whereby resource companies mining in far north Western Australia sought to manage relationships between themselves, their workforces, and the communities in which these workers live. We are responding to the demands of Coe (2013) and Kelly (2013) who wish to see Global Production Network analysis move beyond a narrow workplace focus to incorporate issues such as environmental landscapes, households and livelihoods, and social and spatial unevenness of development. In so doing, we develop the form of analysis of GPNs, labour; and uneven development outlined in Rainnie et al. (2011; 2013

Devolution, market dynamics and the Independent Public School initiative in Western Australia: 'winning back' what has been lost?

The devolution of public sector schooling systems has been a feature of education reform since the 1980s. In Western Australia, the Independent Public School (IPS) initiative has recently been installed, announced by the state government in 2009. Now over 80% of the state’s public school students attend IP schools. Drawing on interview data from a broader study of devolution and the conditions of teachers’ work, this article explores the cases of two schools – one IPS and one non-IPS. While both schools were ostensibly disadvantaged, they proved to be highly contrasting schooling sites, responding to the school marketplace in markedly different ways. We consider the ways in which the IPS initiative is contributing to the operation of market dynamics within the public school sector in WA, and argue that it has created new mechanisms for the residualisation of particular, and specifically non-IP, schools. Furthermore, while one school was apparently more of a ‘winner’ within the school marketplace, as it was attracting increasing student enrolments, we query what it might actually mean to ‘win’ in such a policy settlement, with staff at both schools reporting significant dissatisfaction in their work