• 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 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 13.2% of the workplaces surveyed it was considered that work stations were not designed with safety in mind. However, this percentage was much higher for workplaces in the manufacturing industries (21.4%).

3. Ventilation

Adequate ventilations systems were installed in only 30.9% of the workplaces overall, and in only 15.4% of the service industry workplaces. In those workplaces where adequate ventilation was lacking (in 65.5% of the survey units), workers sometimes or frequently suffered from coughing, breathing difficulties, skin irritation and allergies much more often than average.

In 79.6% of the workplaces, premises were kept clean, and in 76.4% of the workplaces, access to some hazardous areas was restricted.

4. Dangerous substances

In 13.2% of the workplaces surveyed it was considered that work stations were not designed with safety in mind. However, this percentage was much higher for workplaces in the manufacturing industries (21.4%).

Adequate ventilations systems were installed in only 30.9% of the workplaces overall, and in only 15.4% of the service industry workplaces. In those workplaces where adequate ventilation was lacking (in 65.5% of the survey units), workers sometimes or frequently suffered from coughing, breathing difficulties, skin irritation and allergies much more often than average.

In 79.6% of the workplaces, premises were kept clean, and in 76.4% of the workplaces, access to some hazardous areas was restricted.

5. Rotation of workers

In 40% of the workplaces, workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace to limit exposures to hazards. Rotation was more common than average in the primary production and the construction, energy, electricity and water supply industries.

6. Personal protective equipment

When a respondent felt that certain personal protective equipment was needed, it was usually provided by the employer (in 84.6% of cases). Overall, hand protection was provided in 90.9% of the workplaces in which the respondent felt that the concerned equipment was needed, eye protection in 87%, body protection in 83.6%, ear protection in 70.9%, lung protection in 70.4%, head protection in 67.3%, and foot protection in 54.5%. Taken over different sectors, it is apparent that hand protection and body protection (coveralls, cold weather gear, aprons, etc.) were more consistently needed than was any other type of protection. PPE was needed much more often in primary production and manufacturing than in other industries. In these workplaces certain types of protection, especially eye, ear, lung and hand protection, were needed in over 90% of the workplaces, and even in 100% for ear and hand protection. (See table 11)

Table 11. Workplaces of different industries 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 and energy industries 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 58.5% said that foot protection is needed.

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 the Estonian survey, however, when PPE was provided, it was almost always generally used by the workers. Only in 2.4% of workplaces was it not used. The two most common important reasons for not using provided PPE were that the equipment was not appropriate for the job (39%) or that the equipment was uncomfortable (42.9%).

7. Hazard pay

The survey shows that hazard pay is not common practice in Estonian workplaces compared to in some other Central and Eastern European countries. In 12% of the workplaces, workers received hazard pay. The percentage of workers receiving hazard pay ranged from 0.10% to 60% depending on the workplace. However, 31.4% did not know the percentage of workers receiving hazard pay. In primary production, hazard pay was not paid in any of the workplaces.

Most of the respondents answered the question concerning the reasons why hazard pay was accepted by the workers. The most common serious consideration was the extra money.

[ 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 ]