11/24/2016 Third-Party Violence at Work- a multi-sectoral approach by European social partners Presentation by Nadja Salson, EPSU policy staff third-party violence in the workplace No recent data specifically on third party violence across the EU but according to EC report, external violence more of an issue than “internal violence”; no EU data on central government but trade union evidence 2013 European Labour force survey: 1.9% of workers exposed to harassment and bullying (in 2007: 2.7%) and 1.6% exposed to violence or threat of violence (in 2007: 2.2%) OSHA’s ESENER survey at company level: 40% of managers in Portugal, Romania and Norway consider that bullying and harassment as a major concern. The EU average is 20%. Countries with greatest share of managers expressing concern about stress, harassment and violence are those with the lowest share of companies having procedures in place Impact on personal well-being and private life, low staff morale (significant retention and recruitment issue!), performance, absenteeism, and on quality of services Both a cause and an outcome of stress Physical injuries and increasing costs for long-term psychological treatment (for victims of violence and those that witness acts of violence) 1
11/24/2016 EU multi-sectoral social partners ’ initiative: Background 2007: Adoption of the European cross-sectoral agreement on violence and harassment at work. Third-party violence (TPV) not addressed directly (see EC presentation on evaluation of the Agreement) 2010:following a stock-taking exercise EU social partners from hospital, private security, local/regional government, retail and education signed a set of multi-sectoral guidelines to tackle third-party violence and harassment related to work TPV deemed sufficiently distinct from violence and harassment (among colleagues or from management) to justify a distinctive approach Guidelines are not legally binding, up to national social partner- 2013: follow-up study with EC financial support Aims of the Guidelines To support actions by employers, workers and their representatives to prevent, reduce and mitigate TPV and its consequence Increase awareness and understanding of employers, workers, their representatives and other public authorities Demonstrate commitment of social partners Promote key steps of good practice: Partnership i.e. ongoing information and consultation with managers, employees and their trade union reps Clear definitions of TPV Appropriate information to service users, clients that violence will not be tolerated Prevention through risk assessment supported by checklists Training for management and employees Reporting, investigation of allegations of violence or harassment and follow up including provision for medical and financial support to victims, written documentation, protection against reprisals Evaluation 2
11/24/2016 Follow-up report 2013 -1 Translations : BG, NL, CZ, EN, HU, LTH, RO, SL, GE , IT, PO, RU, ES, DA, EST, GR, LTV, PT, SVK, SV Dissemination project- 28 responses from local/regional government, health and social services and commerce Most found the dissemination project useful Dissemination via newsletters, special publications, training, seminars (Finland, Germany and Sweden) Impact on relations between social partners: positive effect, helped put third party violence on the agenda Cooperation with other sectors or agencies for OSH (Finland, Ireland) Difficulties: missing translations; underdeveloped social dialogue; lack of investment in needed measures Follow-up report 2013 -2 II/ Implementation • National examples from all sectors: • local government – Czech rep: training project, Denmark: publication “ avoiding harassment and violence” based on a collective agreement • hospitalFinland : campaign “ Don’t break your caregiver” • commerce- France, agreement + mass mailings to employees; Germany, cooperation with the accident insurance organisation • Education, Poland: preventive measures through cooperation with parents, social services and psychologists, focus also on cyber harassment; Spain: also project based on cooperation between teachers, parents and broader social/educative community and police forces 3
11/24/2016 Follow-up report 2013 -3 II/ Implementation EU sectoral level (1) - education: guide - Taking stock- start by understanding the situation - Cooperation - Promoting good practices - Reporting incidents- knowing know and where to ask assistance - Initial and continous training - Monitoring and follow-up Follow-up report 2013 -4 II/ Implementation EU sectoral level (2) - Private security : OIRA tool i.e. Online Interactive Risk Assessment - Some of the points addressed in checklists: - Clear definitions : bullying (abnormal, repetitive behaviour via verbal or physical aggression or subtle acts e.g. underrating an employee’s work or isolating the individual socially) - to avoid lone working ( must be part of risk assessment) - Training in handling conflict situations - Post incident care must be provided - Clear message to perpetrators and victims that violence in whatever form will not be tolerated - Clear chain of responsibility - To investigate the facts quickly and impartially - Complaints may not lead to reprisals, the anonymity of both victims and perpetrators should be maintained - To appoint one or more persons of trust to provide front line contact in dealing with and supporting the victims 4
11/24/2016 Follow-up report 2013 -5 II/ Implementation- Difficulties when addressing TPV - Constant reforms e.g. Bulgaria, health services - TPV still perceived as “ normal” e.g. Czech rep healthcare - Social partners’ actions on TPV not concrete enough e.g. Finland - Insufficient funding in OSH e.g.Latvia - Problems with identifying social partners in non public sector e.g. Sweden - Guidelines remain too generic, need a more specific agreement e.g. UK Follow-up report 2013: next steps Not a clear-cut picture: further actions required for EPSU affiliates in local/regional government; for the employers emphasis on implementation of agreements/legislation Agreement on following challenges: TPV remains not well-understood, mixed up with “internal” workplace violence between employees or employees/employers; language/cultural issue Lack of awareness in society Related to the above, low reporting of incidences austerity measures exacerbate risks of violence and reduce chances for preventive measures Need for more focused research To extend the coverage of the Guidelines to other sectors such as central government, transport 5
11/24/2016 Evidence from central government services: Example from prison services -1 • No data at EU level on central government • Central government social partners not signatories to the multi-sectoral guidelines • Yet evidence of violence in CGA related services • Example from prison services, EPSU survey of affiliates: Responses from 14 unions from 12 countries Belgium Northern Cyprus Denmark Estonia Finland France Italy Netherlands Norway Romania Spain UK Evidence from central government services- prison services2 • Health and safety was a concern with 8 out of 14 unions saying that the situation had deteriorated. • 9 said that the number of violent attacks on staff had increased, often providing details of the extent of the assaults. In Spain unions figures show a violent attack every two days; in the UK, number of serious assaults has doubled in two years to more than 10 a week. • Prison staff also suffer from stress. All but one of the unions reported that stress had increased, austerity cited as one of the key reasons. • Despite these difficult conditions, only a minority of unions thought that levels of sickness absence had increased. • Most unions indicated that there were structures and/or policies in place intended to maintain and improve the health and safety, but often little health and safety training . • Asked to assess whether prisoners conditions had improved in the last five years, only 4 unions said that they had. Elsewhere, the unions either thought that prisoners’ conditions had remained unchanged or got worse 6
11/24/2016 7
Recommend
More recommend
