• Index  • Regional Summary  • Bulgaria     • Index     • Part 1     • Part 2     • Part 3     • Part 4     • Part 5     • Part 6     • Part 7     • Part 8     • Summary     • Lists  • Czech Republic  • Estonia  • Hungary  • Lithuania  • Russia  • Slovakia  • Ukraine  • Data

Part V: Controls

1. Introduction

There are several ways of controlling hazards at the workplace - all have advantages and disadvantages in terms of protection and cost. But any control program should meet the following standards:

• it should fully control the hazard
• it should protect the health and safety of all workers potentially exposed
• it should allow workers to carry out their work without discomfort or stress
• it should not spread the hazard to other work areas or into the surrounding environment when it removes it from one work area.

There is a simple way of thinking about this: hazards can be controlled at the source, along the path they travel to the worker, and at the worker. From a trade union point of view, control is less effective and less desirable the further away it is from the source of the hazard. Unfortunately, controls are usually more immediately expensive the nearer they are to the source. Controlling at the source means designing a safe, ergonomic workplace in the first place, or eliminating a hazard through substitution of hazardous chemicals and processes with safer ones. Complete enclosure or mechanisation of the hazard are other means of control near the source. Further along, good local and general ventilation can be used to prevent dusts, fumes and gases, etc. from reaching the breathing zone of workers or to dilute them. Controls applied to the worker are the least effective but are often the cheapest. (At least in the short-term - as they are of limited effectiveness they may prove to have hidden costs in illness and disability later.) In this category are included such controls as personal protective equipment (ppe) and administrative measures such as rotation of workers, personal hygiene, good housekeeping, and restricted access to hazardous areas.

2. Worksite design

In 73.9% of the workplaces, work stations were designed with safety in mind. In service sector, the percentage was lower (65%). Work stations were designed with safety in mind more often in workplaces which were foreign owned in some degree than in domestically owned workplaces.

Adequate ventilations systems were installed in 47.7% of the workplaces. In 66.5% of the workplaces, premises were kept clean, and in 71.2% of the workplaces, access to some hazardous areas was restricted.

3. Ventilation

Adequate ventilations systems were installed in 47.7% of the workplaces, although 46% of the respondents said they were not installed. In 66.5% of the workplaces, premises were kept clean, and in 71.2% of the workplaces access to some hazardous areas was restricted.

4. Dangerous substances

54.6% of the respondents said that the management had a policy to reduce dangerous substances. However, in the chemical industry only 47.8%, and in agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing industry, only 30% of the workplaces had such a policy. In workplaces with some degree of foreign ownership, it was more common that management had a policy to reduce dangerous substances.

5. Rotation of workers

In 41.2% of the workplaces, workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace to limit exposures to hazards. Rotation of workers was most common in primary production and least common in services.

6. Personal protective equipment

When the respondent felt that certain personal protective equipment was needed, it was usually (in nearly 70% of cases) provided by the employer. Overall, foot protection was provided in 75.1% of those workplaces where the respondents felt that the PPE concerned was needed, hand protection in 74.5%, respiratory protection in 74.1%, body protection in 73.4%, head protection in 73%, eye protection in 72.9% and ear protection in 71.6%. Taken over the different sectors, however, it is apparent that body protection (coveralls, cold weather gear, aprons, etc.) was more consistently needed than was head or foot protection for example.

Table 10. Workplaces of different sectors of industry where PPE was needed for some jobs

Naturally, the need for different types of PPE depends on the industry and activity, but a surprisingly low percentage of respondents said that PPE is needed for some jobs. For example, only 66.7% of the respondents in the construction industry said that head protection is needed (whereas it is obligatory in some countries for all persons entering a building site to wear a hard hat), and only 75% said that foot protection is needed. In the service industries, the need for PPE was smaller than in other sectors of industry, although body protection was needed for 66% of workplace activities in this sector (See table 10).

Figure 19. Reasons for not using PPE, although it is provided

Wearing of PPE is often a compromise between security and other objective and subjective criteria. Reasons why workers are reticent to use PPE include:

• ergonomic aspects: hotness, weight, fitting problems, loss of dexterity, limited visual field, loss of auditory signals - all are major wearability issues.
• perception of risk and decision to protect: often workers do not perceive the risk or are "hardened" by tough working conditions. This is especially true for protection against chemicals and biological agents where the risk is not immediately obvious or visible. (This is confirmed by a French study that showed that manufacturers and suppliers of PPE have noticed that certain PPE, especially respirators, is not asked for as often as conditions warrant.)
• socio-technical aspects: uncertainties or confusion over what equipment to use for which jobs, or a lack of knowledge of the legislation (on the part of the employer as well as workers), or when the worker has to pay for his or her own PPE.

In 75.9% of the workplaces in this survey, PPE was generally used when it was provided. The most common important reason for not using the provided PPE was the neglect on the part of workers (See figure 19).

Figure 20. Workplaces by the percentage of workers receiving hazard pay

7. Hazard pay

Hazard pay was common in Bulgarian workplaces. In 89.2% of the workplaces, at least some workers received hazard pay (See figure 20). The percentage of workers receiving hazard pay ranged from 0.09% to 100% depending on the workplace, with 25% of workplaces reporting that all workers received hazard pay. Hazard pay was not paid in banking and finance and the culture sectors. There were a number of industries where hazard pay was paid to some extent in all survey units: agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing; mining and quarrying; chemical products; wood products and furniture; pulp, paper, paper products and printing; and hotel and catering.

The proportion of workers that received hazard pay was highest in mining and quarrying. In 65% of the mining and quarrying workplaces all workers received hazard pay, and in all such workplaces more than 50% of the workers received hazard pay (See table 11).

Table 11. Workplaces by the percentage of workers receiving hazard pay in different industries

Figure 21. Reasons why workers accept the hazard pay

There were three almost equally important considerations for accepting hazard pay: extra money (60%), fear of losing the job (49.7%), and lack of other jobs (48.6%) (See figure 21). The extra money is an important factor in a country where average monthly salaries in 1998 (the time this survey was carried out) at least in the public sector were lower than their 1995 levels. GNP per capita in 1998 was equivalent to 1,230 USD and 36% of the population lived below the poverty line.

[ Index | Regional summary | Bulgaria | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Lithuania | Russia | Slovakia | Ukraine | Data ]
[ Index | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Part VII | Part VIII | Summary | Lists ]