• Index  • Regional Summary  • Bulgaria  • Czech Republic     • Index     • Part 1     • Part 2     • Part 3     • Part 4     • Part 5     • Part 6     • Part 7     • Part 8     • Summary     • Lists  • 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 de sirable 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.

Figure 20. Workplaces of different industries that had a management policy to reduce dangerous substances

2. Worksite design

In 71% of the workplaces surveyed, it was estimated that work stations were designed with safety in mind, and only in 8.6% was it considered that they were not (20.4% of the respondents did not know). The situation was worse in public-owned enterprises, with 15.7% of the respondents in these workplaces saying that work stations were not designed for safety. In new private enterprise workplaces, only 5% of the respondents said that work stations were not designed with safety in mind. The survey also highlighted differences between industries: 33.3% of the respondents in wood production and furniture, 22.2% in hotels and catering, and 20% in business services said that work stations were not designed with safety in mind.

3. Ventilation

Adequate ventilations systems were installed in 61.8% of the workplaces. In 80.9% of the workplaces, premises were kept clean, and in 86.5% of the workplaces access to some hazardous areas was restricted.

4. Dangerous substances

48.7% of the respondents said that management had a policy to reduce dangerous substances (although 33.9% did not know). These policies varied considerably according to industry (See figure 20) and were linked to a certain extent to those industries where dangerous substances are most extensively used. This is obviously not always the case as the wood products and furniture industry, agriculture and textiles - all big users of dangerous products - come rather low on the list.

Figure 21. Workplaces of different industries where workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace to limit exposures to hazards

5. Rotation of workers

In 22.6% of the workplaces surveyed, workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace to limit exposures to hazards. This figure varied considerably with different industries, reaching over 60% for workplaces in the food and beverage industries and 40% for agricultural workplaces (See figure 21).

6. Personal protective equipment

When the respondent felt that certain personal protective equipment (PPE) was needed, it was almost always provided by the employer - in 97-100% of cases, depending on the PPE concerned. Overall, respondents thought that hand protection was needed for jobs in their workplaces in 91.3% of cases, body protection such as aprons, cold weather gear, in 87.5% of cases, eye protection 82.3%, ear protection in 69.2%, lung protection in 66.4%, and head protection in 63.9%. Taken over different sectors, it is apparent that hand and body protection was more consistently needed than was any other type of protection.

Naturally, the need for different types of PPE depends on the industry and activity (See table 10), and the survey turned up no great surprises, except perhaps for the fact that the percentage of respondents who said that foot or head protection was needed in the construction industry was surprisingly low (whereas it is obligatory in some countries for all persons entering a building site to wear a hard hat). Particulary strange is the fact that PPE, including head, eye and foot protection, was considered necessary for so many activities in banking and business services.

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

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 95.1% of the workplaces is this survey, PPE was generally used when it was provided. Only 1.3% of the respondents said that it was not used. The most common important reason for not using the provided PPE was neglect on the part of workers, followed closely by the fact that it is uncomfortable to wear, and that it is not appropriate to the job.

Figure 22. Workplaces by the % of employees receiving hazard pay

7. Hazard pay

Hazard pay was common in Czech workplaces. In 56.7% of the workplaces, at least some employees received hazard pay, and in 10.4% of the workplaces, over 75% of the employees received hazard pay (See figure 22).

Surprisingly, hazard pay was most common in the health industry, where 95% of the workplaces had it to some extent. Furthermore, it covered proportionately more employees than in any other industry: in 55% of the health industry workplaces, over 75% of employees received hazard pay. Hazard pay was also very common in the chemical and metal industries and in mining and quarrying. Hazard pay was not paid at all in only three industries: education, banking, finance and insurance, and hotel and catering.

Hazard pay was much more common in public-owned enterprises than in private enterprises. For example, employees received hazard pay in 97% of public-owned mining and quarrying enterprises, but in only 74% of those privatised, and in 64% of those which were new private workplaces.

There were three almost equally important reasons for accepting hazard pay: extra money (a serious consideration in 44.5% of cases), fear of losing the job (44.4%), and no other jobs available (43%). Although the Czech Republic enjoys a relative "success" among Central and eastern European countries, with a GDP per capita in 1998 of just below $5,000, and relatively low unemployment figures, the fear of unemployment may well be an important aspect of accepting hazard pay considering that unemployment is rising, from 3-3.5% in the early 1990s to 7% in 1998 (the time of this survey).

[ 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 ]