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

Part I: Description of the survey units

1. Respondents

Altogether, 55 replies were received from Estonia. All respondents belonged to EAKL.

80% of the respondents were worker representatives and 12% were health and safety representatives. 8% were of some other position. The reason for this distribution and relative lack of health and safety representatives is not known from the survey - does it mean that there are few safety representatives in Estonia because the unions have decided to give health and safety responsibilities to worker representatives; are there no legal provisions for health and safety representatives as an institution...? The interest given over to occupational health and safety (osh) on the part of unions will always be a trade off between worker representatives who also deal with osh and can relate it to other areas of union concerns, and osh representatives who have training in the field but little to do with other areas of union activity.

Figure 1. Workplaces by industry

2. Field of activity

The field of activity will have a profound effect on a union’s health and safety policy. The service sector, for example, is obviously less hazardous than manufacturing or construction. Even within a sector, health and safety hazards will differ. In the Estonian sample, the three dominant industries were mining and quarrying (18.9%), energy, electricity, gas and water supply (18.9%) and transport and communications (18.9%). However, it must be pointed out that the total sample was very small, only 55 replies, and the 18.9% represents only 10 replies from an industry. Seven replies were obtained from the wood products and furniture industry and four from the textile, clothing and leather industries, representing 13.2% and 7.5% respectively. Otherwise, only one or two replies were received from each of several other sectors so that general conclusions and those drawn on the basis of sector should be treated with caution.

Primary production (mining and quarrying, and agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing) accounted for 22% of all Estonian survey units. Secondary production’s share was 52% (manufacturing 28% and energy, electricity, gas and water supply together with construction 24%) and the service sector’s share was 26% (mainly transport and communications). (See figure 1) Although the four different sectors that will be referred to in this report - primary production, manufacturing, construction and energy, and services - were evenly distributed, they do not reflect their relative importance nationally.

How does this survey distribution compare with the national situation? Taken as a percentage of GDP in Estonia, agriculture accounted for 6.3% in 1998, industry for 26.7% (of which, manufacturing for 15.5%) and services for 67%. There is thus a definite bias towards industry and manufacturing in the survey - if the industrial category is taken to include mining and quarrying, manufacturing, construction and energy, then replies from the secondary sector represent 72% of the sample (compared with the figure of 26.7% of GDP mentioned above). This skew probably reflects the distribution decisions made by the union involved which in turn perhaps reflects rates of unionisation, concerns of which industries are more dangerous, etc.

Figure 2. Workplaces and companies they belonged to by the number of employed persons

3. Size

Generally, the bigger the workplace the safer it is. This is because bigger workplaces may have distinct health and safety policies, sometimes a health and safety director, often occupational health personnel; they will be aware of osh legislation, have more resources to put into improvements; they are more likely to be inspected; and, most importantly, have some trade union representation.

In the Estonian survey, a majority of the surveyed workplaces, as well as the companies they belonged to, employed 100-500 persons (See figure 2). However, once again it must be pointed out that these statistics cannot be generalised to the work environment as a whole as, even in this very small sample size, 63.6% of the respondents did not give a figure for the numbers of people employed by company.

Japanese statistics on occupational accidents by size of workplace confirms that the smaller the workplace the higher the frequency rate of accidents - accidents being seven times more frequent in workplaces of 100-299 employees than in workplaces of 1,000 or more. For example, in manufacturing in Japan the frequency rate in 1997 for occupational accidents was 1.97/100,000 workers in workplaces of 100-299 employees; 1.10 in workplaces of 300-499 employees; 0.62 in workplaces of 500-999 employees; and 0.32 in workplaces of over 1,000 employees.

In the Estonian sample there was an overwhelming tendency to a decrease in the number of employees in most workplaces over the three years preceding the survey, in 63.6% overall, but the trend was most noticeable in primary production where over 90% of the workplaces had reduced the number of employees (See figure 3). The percentage of workplaces that had reduced the number of employees was below 50% only in construction and energy, electricity, gas and water supply.

Figure 3. Change in the number of employees over the last three years

Reducing the number of employees can be due to several factors which the survey did not question - unemployment with loss of production, introduction of new technology, etc. or same volume of production with fewer employees, leading to cross-skilling, lean production, longer hours, stress, etc. It is obvious that the latter reason will have an effect on occupational safety and health at the level of the workplace.

4. Property form and ownership

Type of ownership can very well have an effect on occupational safety and health. Foreign-owned companies often come with a background of health and safety legislation and practices in other (usually industrialised) countries. Even if in reality their standards fall to some extent, it should be expected that they maintain some. They also usually have more resources to put into improvements.

According to the World Bank, Estonia’s privatisation programme moved swiftly, so that industrial sector privatisation was virtually complete by 1996. The privatisation of large infrastructure enterprises is underway and is scheduled for completion in the next few years. Land privatisation has been slower off the mark, with only 20% of land under state ownership privatised by the end of 1997.

In this survey there were only three public sector units (5.6%). Private enterprises accounted for 48.2% (privatised 42.6% and new private 5.6%) and public owned enterprises 42.6%. Almost all of the enterprises surveyed were domestically owned, with only 8 workplaces (15.7%) showing at least some degree of foreign ownership. Three of these belonged to the transport and communications sector, three to wood products and furniture manufacturing, one to mining and quarrying, and one to the textiles, clothing and leather industry.

Figure 4. Workplaces by the percentage of women employees

5. Women

Female workers made up 49% of the total labour force in Estonia in 1998, but the average percentage of women employees in the workplaces in this survey was 35.4%. Most of the workplaces (66.1%) showed a maximum of 40% women workers amongst their employees, and 45.3% had less than 20% women employees (See figure 4). There was only one workplace in which there were no female employees, and two where all the employees were female. It must be pointed out that women tend to be employed in so-called "women’s work" and this is confirmed by the survey. The average percentage of women’s share of the workforce was highest in the service sector (51%), and smallest in the primary sector (14%).

Do women workers make "safer" workers? This is often said, but may be due simply to the fact that they are concentrated in the relatively safe service sector and not so exposed to the traditional hazards of the construction, mining and metal transformation industries, for example. This is not to say that they are not exposed to injury and illness at work - just different types, such as repetitive strain injury and stress which are fast becoming among the major health strains on a company’s and country’s economy in terms of sheer numbers affected.

Table 1. Accidents at work in the European Union (1994), all branches of activity:

Figure 5. Main sectors of industry by the percentage of permanent employees

6. Employment relationship

Different types of employment status have an independent effect on health-related outcomes at the workplace. This is an important consideration given the present trend towards a proliferation of non-standard workforms (fixed-term contracts, agency work, part-time work, self-employment...) According to a study carried out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the working conditions of temporary employees are worse than those of permanent employees. The former are more exposed to painful work positions, intense noise, repetitive movements and short repetitive tasks. From the point of view of work organisation, temporary workers, although less exposed than permanent workers to high speed work, have much less autonomy over the management of their work and time. They are also less consulted about organisational change, receive less training and have fewer discussions about their work problems with colleagues, bosses and worker representatives.

Most employees in this survey had a permanent employment relationship. The average percentage of the workforce with permanent contracts was 82%. In 32.7% of the workplaces, all employees had a permanent employment relationship and in 83.7% of the workplaces at least 76% of the employees were permanent.

Permanent employment contracts were most common in the construction and energy, electricity, gas and water supply sectors, where 45% of the workplaces had all permanent employees (See figure 5). Surprisingly, the most precarious activities (those in which less than 75% of the workforce had permanent contracts) were to be found in manufacturing, where less than 10% of workplaces had all permanent employees.

Figure 6. Workplaces by the trade-union membership level

7. Trade-unions

Research evidence clearly demonstrates that any programmes that have a lasting benefit on worker morale, improved health and safety and environmental conditions, and productivity are those negotiated with trade unions. Examples abound of studies that show that workplaces with strong trade union representation are safer than those where unions do not exist or are weak. The consensus is that workers who are members of trade unions are more likely to exercise their rights to a safe working environment , they are supported by their trade unions which provide them with training in health and safety and with up-to-date information on workplace risks, making them better equipped to identify risks and propose solutions, especially as part of their work on joint health and safety committees. (For more details on trade union support for worker representatives see Part VIII, Structures for dealing with occupational and environmental health.)

Figure 7. Workplaces of different sectors having a trade-union membership level of 76% or higher

The majority of respondents stated that trade union membership level in their workplaces was above 50% (See figure 6).

High trade union membership level was much more common in primary production (in this survey, mainly mining and quarrying) than in other industries (See figure 7). The average trade union membership level was 83% in primary production, 60% in the construction, energy, electricity and water supply industries, 57% in manufacturing and 47% in services.

In most workplaces (81.1%) the relations of trade union with the employer were cooperative in issues concerning occupational health and safety and environment, and uncooperative in 16.4%.

[ 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 ]