A man reports bullying on a mine site. Human Resources (HR) follows all protocols as policies are ticked off and checklists completed. However, on the ground, the man finds himself eating lunch alone, excluded from the crew, and assigned to the most dangerous tasks.

For most in his position, the silence that follows feels worse than the harassment itself. For some, suicide begins to feel like the only way out.

The human cost of speaking up

In my work counselling employees from the mining industry, this scenario is not unfamiliar. More often than many expect, a worker reports harassment, including sexual harassment or bullying, to HR. A case is opened and formal steps are followed: interviews are conducted, policies referenced, safety plans drafted, and redeployment occasionally considered. On paper, the system works.

But on the ground, the worker’s world shrinks. Rosters are adjusted, mates stop making eye contact, a supervisor’s jokes become pointed. Subtle workarounds appear as radio calls are missed and pre-starts are quietly skipped. The worker is left alone with the least desirable or most hazardous tasks.

None of these behaviours necessarily triggers a formal policy breach. Yet taken together, they create isolation inside a safety-critical and hyper-masculine environment where seeking help is already stigmatised. For some men, resignation or suicide can begin to feel like the only options. It does not have to be that way.

Through my private telehealth practice, I frequently work with mining workers accessing Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) or private counselling. My aim in this article is to highlight evidence-based, field-tested methods I use to assess risk, stabilise functioning, and develop practical plans that work within mining culture.

Why mining is different and why it matters in session

Before looking at session strategies, it’s important to understand the unique cultural and systemic factors that make mining different from most workplaces:

• Elevated suicide risk: Australian research estimates suicide among male mining workers at approximately 25 per 100,000. This rate is higher than many other occupational groups and continues to trend upward (King et al., 2023).
• FIFO/DIDO amplifiers: Fly-in and fly-out rosters, extended shifts, isolation from trusted networks, and reduced perceived autonomy all increase distress and reduce help-seeking (King et al., 2022).
• A culture problem rather than isolated individuals: Research into male-dominated industries consistently shows that informal retaliation and social exclusion can emerge after a worker raises concerns. These dynamics significantly increase psychological strain, particularly for men who already feel pressure to "cope alone" (King et al., 2022; Milner et al., 2018).
• Masculinity norms: Traditional masculine ideologies are strongly associated with negative attitudes toward counselling and emotional disclosure, particularly in regional and remote contexts (Seidler et al., 2018).
• The legal framework vs. the pit: Psychosocial hazard codes of practice have strengthened employer obligations. However, workers often report that these protections do not translate into lived safety. This disconnect was a core finding of the Western Australia Parliament’s (2022) inquiry into FIFO culture, which noted that formal reporting often triggers informal social punishment (Safe Work Australia, 2022; WorkSafe WA, 2023).
  
  

My 45-minute session structure: A collaborative framework

Many of the men I work with in mining contexts respond best to a transparent, structured session where they remain in the driver’s seat. The following framework is a way to facilitate a client-led process that restores agency.

1. Collaborative risk triage (8–10 minutes)

If a client shares statements like “It would be easier if I wasn’t here,” I normalise the conversation by asking if we can look at his safety together. Rather than "assigning" a plan, I ask, "What does safety look like for you on this next swing?" in order to build guardrails using his own language. I might offer data, such as the fact that help-seeking is a proactive survival strategy used by many men (AIHW, 2023), to help him frame his decision to talk as an act of strength. Together, we identify his "go-to" contacts, and he decides how to store them.

2. Map the problem precisely (5 minutes)

I offer to help the client "map out" the external pressures he’s facing. We look at the system together and I might ask, "Where do you feel the system is pressing on you the most right now?" This helps the client see that the distress is a response to a documented psychosocial hazard (Safe Work Australia, 2022). He identifies the "hazards" while I simply provide the names for them.

3. Rebuild agency with task-focused work (15 minutes)

I provide a "menu" of evidence-based tools and ask which one feels most practical:

• Problem-solving: The client identifies one controllable issue to tackle this week.
• CBT-informed inquiry: We explore the difference between actual risks and anticipated backlash.
• Roster-based activation: He plans his own downtime and connection points around his shifts.
  

I might suggest, "We’re building a toolkit you can run under pressure," but he chooses the tools. This respects masculine norms of autonomy (Seidler et al., 2018).

4. Document smart, not just more (5 minutes)

I suggest keeping a simple log of site incidents, framing it as "professional risk management" rather than a personal diary. If he finds this useful, we look at how he can link observations to the Code of Practice (Safe Work Australia, 2022).

5. Clarify escalation pathways (5 minutes)

When a client feels HR has failed him, we explore options beyond the site office, such as Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) or WorkSafe WA. We might "draft" scripts together for him to use in his own voice, ensuring he leaves with a clear, self-determined path for his next shift.

What to listen for—and how to respond

These responses show how mining clients frame distress—and how counsellors can translate that language into practical strategies.

When the culture fights back

Clients often share the frustration: “HR has had all the meetings with management, but nothing has changed for me.”

When this arises, it’s important to acknowledge the gap between policy and practice with the client. Evidence shows that organisational responses can look compliant on paper while subtle exclusion and informal punishment continue at ground level. Naming this "informal retaliation" helps the client realise they aren't failing to navigate the system; rather, the system is failing to bridge the “policy to pit” gap (King et al., 2022; Milner et al., 2018).

What’s the point?

When a client asks, “What’s the point of reporting if nothing changes?” I avoid false reassurance. I might say:

“It’s discouraging when a process meant to protect you leaves you feeling more exposed. While we can't control how management acts, we can work together to ensure you aren't carrying the fallout alone. Our focus can stay on keeping you safe and keeping you connected.”

From a clinical perspective, we are working to prevent internal collapse. When we work together to externalise the problem by naming it as a systemic failure, the client’s sense of self-efficacy improves. The work is about helping the client stay tethered to his own purpose and options.

What keeps men alive is connection plus control

Suicide remains a leading cause of premature death in Australia, particularly among men (AIHW, 2023). This is why restoring connection and agency is a clinical priority. When a worker interprets social isolation as a personal "ouster”, his risk profile can shift quickly and quietly (Milner et al., 2018).

If there is one takeaway for practitioners, it is this: Aim to have the client leave the session with a safety plan he trusts, two scripts he can use, and a plan to meet one person for a coffee on his RDO. That combination of agency and connection saves lives.