Promoting Preventative Safety & Health Culture: - International Instruments - Good Practices By Brian Kohler Health, Safety and Sustainability Officer International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions
Little to say about national strategies. I will say something about international instruments, and good practices. SO, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
What are the hazards? • Occupational accidents (diced, sliced, crushed, burned) • Cancer (chemicals, radiation) • Respiratory diseases (fibres e.g. asbestos, dusts e.g. silica and coal, corrosive chemicals, sensitizers, allergens) • Circulatory diseases (chemicals, stress, shiftwork) • Skin diseases (corrosive chemicals, senistizers/allergens, sunlight) • Diseases of internal organs/systems such as liver, kidneys, nervous system, digestive system, blood-forming (chemicals) • Musculo-skeletal disorders (e.g. back problems, occupational overuse syndrome - tendons, joints) • Chronic fatigue (shiftwork, excessive hours of work) • Infectious diseases • Noise and vibration • Heat and/or ventilation problems • Physical / psychological threats (bullying, violence, racism, sexism)
W orld Occupational Deaths: 2 .3 m illion per year 32% cancer 23% circulatory 18% accident-violence 17% infection 8% respiratory 1% digestive 1% mental 0.4% urogenital Sources: Hämäläinen P, Takala J, Saarela KL; TUT, ILO, EU-OSHA, 2008
underestimates These statistics, shocking as they are, are gross underestimates: • record only nationally accepted statistics, usually from workers' compensation • occupational diseases under-diagnosed • widespread suppression of accident reporting, sometimes outright concealment
A Brief History of OHS Thought
HISTORY: Pre – 1970s � Accidents and fatalities viewed as an accepted risk, a cost of doing business � Health and Safety viewed as strictly a management prerogative � Regulations tended to be detailed and prescriptive � Regulators saw themselves as enforcers � Safety programs emphasized personal vigilance; personal protective equipment; “domino” theory � Accidents typically blamed on (careless) workers
1970s � Accidents and fatalities increasingly viewed as unacceptably high � Growing awareness of occupational diseases � Pressure to change from unions and governments � Health and Safety becomes a shared responsibility � Main workplace safety program becomes the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) � Accidents typically blamed on management
1980s � Disappointment that (lost time) injury rates are not falling � Bhopal accident: fear of major industrial accidents � Frequent response by management was to create parallel systems and multiple lines of authority � First serious attempts to create health and safety audit and continual improvement systems � Major growth in health and safety professions: industrial hygienists, ergonomists, safety engineers � Accidents typically blamed on anyone not present at the actual accident!
1990s � Fatalities and lost time accidents still high � We searched for the “quick fix” or the “magic bullet” � Drug testing, behaviour-based programs, ISO 9000 (1987) � Management systems approach to health and safety (including Process Safety Management) takes hold � Search for “leading” indicators (as opposed to trailing) begins � Regulators talk of “performance” rather than “specification” standards. Unfortunately, often code for outright deregulation. � Accidents typically blamed on the “bad apples”
2000s � Lost time accidents and fatalities still high � “Sustainability” and “Corporate Social Responsibility” � OHS management systems mature and start to integrate � Further attempts to write standards for decision – making � Re – visitation of joint approaches (JHSCs) � Regulators continue to try to target “poor performers” based on faulty indicators � Accidents typically blamed on decision making processes
Summary � OHS regulations (especially Workers' Compensation) are generally adversarial and reward those who “conceal and appeal” rather than those who “accept and correct”. � Usual quantitative indicators (lost time accidents) are trailing, have little statistical power and are easily manipulated � Occupational health and safety is a complex problem that requires systemic and ongoing effort � Two approaches seem successful: - internal and external responsibility - management “systems” approaches
Internal Responsibility: Joint Health & Safety Committees
- Right to Refuse (shut down) - Right to Participate - Right to Know … BASED ON TRUST
Why Joint Committees? Those with the most knowledge of the hazards must have direct input to those with the authority to control the hazards.
External Responsibility – a clear and enforceable legislative and regulatory framework Labour inspectorate that understand their role “Due Diligence” - a legal defence - the argument that one has taken every precaution reasonable (possible) in the circumstances - must be demonstrated with hard evidence - policies on paper, by themselves, not enough
Safety Management Systems What management systems need to be in place to prevent a failure – an accident ? How can workers and their unions work with management to make sound decisions in OHS ?
Systems vs. "Traditional" OHS � Traditional focus is on individual actions and legal requirements. � Instead, focuses on processes and systems. � Individuals and procedures are parts of systems. � Goal: to eliminate health and safety incidents.
International Instruments: The ILO
International Labour Organization � UN specialised agency � Unique tripartite structure Workers Employers Governments � Seeks the promotion of social justice and internationally recognized human and labour right - “Decent Work” 23
International Labour Standards International Labour Standards are expressions of international tripartite agreement on a matter 24
Arguments Made Against Ratification - Will add costs and harm competitiveness. - Will subject compliance to international oversight through an international treaty. - Will subject the country to embarrassment if not complied with. 25
Should Support Ratification ! - Competition cannot be based on compromised OHS. - Saying no to setting minimum international health and safety standards should not be accepted in any society. - Refusal to ratify international conventions inflicts reputational damage. - Support for ratification brings governments and employers into compliance with widely accepted international standards in the community of nations. 26
ILO Method of Ratification tripartite consensus � review of existing laws and regulations � proposals to improve existing laws and � regulations approval of new laws and regulations � ratification � 27
Campaign Model of Ratification trade unions form consensus � reach out to government and employers � start educational program on importance � determine key resistance and what is � necessary to overcome it target employers or government figures who � resist ratification mobilize public opinion � ratification � 28
Other International Response: • WHO, OHSAS, ISO, GRI, UNEP • chemical safety regulations and initiatives: including GHS, REACH, SAICM • challenge employers through Global Framework Agreements (GFAs) • global campaigns e.g. ILO 176 • ICEM seminars and responses to inquiries
Some Warnings: • Medical surveillance - rarely predictive; privacy and other concerns. • Labour inspection - role confusion. • Indicators; “business case for OHS”? - not always. Moral case is stronger. • Chile - ILO 176? One disaster away! • Social dialogue - corporations aren't people. Is safety done "with" workers, or "to" workers?
International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions Fédération internationale des syndicats de travailleurs de la chimie, de l'énergie, des mines et des industries diverses The stronger the union, the safer the workplace!
… Thank You! Brian Kohler Health, Safety and Sustainability Officer International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers’ Unions rue Adrien-Lachenal 20 1207 Geneva, Switzerland
Recommend
More recommend
