The Age reports that Melburnians are so agreeable that they they will risk giving themselves and someone else an electric shock if they are asked to, WorkSafe Victoria found in a recent social experiment allegedly, based on the Stanley Prison experiments. However, aworkcovervictimsdiary is still not sure the message it is supposed to deliver and to whom? Should we call them WorkSafe stupidy experiments? To us, seriously injured workers, it looks very similar to the tactics used by WorkSafe Victoria’s very own workcover insurance Agents to intimidate genuinely injured workers…
WorkSafe Victoria reproduces Stanley Milgram obedience experiments
“Naked” has launched a campaign for WorkSafe Victoria,allegedly based on the findings of controversial Stanley prison experiments from 1960′s which found that people are obedient to requests, even if those requests have dangerous consequences. According to WorkSafe Victoria’s bizarre “experiment” about 90% did what they were told to do.
Apparently WorkSafe Victoria’s appointed “Naked” partner and psychologist stated“We wanted to draw attention to the fact that WorkSafe’s public awareness campaign is founded on real psychological insights. We are all susceptible to doing dangerous tasks, if asked to do so by our bosses. For anyone who supervises others the message is simple – don’t ask people to do dangerous things, as they just might do them”.
The campaign is being supported by Public Relations and social media activity focused on WorkSafe Victoria’s Facebook page.
Oh and by the way, the only thing this ad has in common with the Milgram (aka Stanley prison) experiments is the faux use of electric shocks, and the influence of someone in uniform. There is no coercion involved in the ad, and no passerby unwilling to assist, unlike Milgram. And the “victim” is in full view.
We are still not sure the message it’s delivering and to whom? Surely looks very similar to the tactics used by WorkSafe Vic’s very own workcover insurance Agents to intimidate genuinely injured workers…
You may be interested in our post “Workcover case managers and the Stanford prison experiment“
Why else would a case manager arbitrarily stop an injured worker’s weekly payments, or deny medication that the worker had been getting for weeks, deny surgery, or delay approving some routine medical treatment that had been ordered by the authorised treating doctor? Would they do the same thing to their own family member, or someone they knew personally? I don’t think so!
WorkSafe Vic last orders
“Would you do what you ask your workers to do? A light hearted way to remind managers and supervisors about a very serious message – make safety a priority when supervising workers….” – WTF?!
Shock survey finds Melburnians would pass live wire
aworkcovervictimsdiary believes that this also applies to workcover Case Managers!!!
She said while employers had the principle responsibility for ensuring workplaces were safe, supervisors and managers also had a big role to play in the safety or otherwise of workplaces.
Last year a supervisor from a drilling company was convicted and given a suspended jail sentence for ordering a 21-year-old to drive a truck with faulty parking brakes and no seatbelt down a steep, off-road slope near Kilmore in Victoria in 2006. The truck flipped and the young man was killed. He had only recently acquired a truck licence.
WorkSafe Victoria seems to know quite a lot about the Stanley prison experiments, eh…