• Index Seminar Reports  • Introduction  • Baltic Region  • Central Europe  • South-East Europe • Participants • Seminar proceedings • Survey results • Key findings • Conclusions  • Ukraine and Russia  Survey Reports  • Regional Summary  • Bulgaria  • Czech Republic  • Estonia  • Hungary  • Lithuania  • Russia  • Slovakia  • Ukraine  • Data

Sub-Regional OSHE Experts Seminar for Trade Unions in South-East Europe

This seminar grouped 20 experts in occupational safety and health from trade union confederations in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Moldova and Romania (see list of participants at the end of this seminar report). Most of the participants were engineers by training, responsible for OSH in their unions which represented workers mainly in the metalworking industries, health care services, mining, construction, agriculture and chemicals. Among the Bulgarian participants were those experts who had primary responsibility for conducting the survey. Of the 20 participants four were women, one from Moldova, one from Macedonia, and one each from the two Bulgarian unions. The three resource persons were women: Dimitrina Dimitrova from the ILO’s Bureau for Workers’ Activities (ACTRAV), Annie Rice from the ILO’s SafeWork Programme, and Paula Repo, ILO Consultant.

The seminar was opened by Dr. Kokalov, Deputy President of KNSB and addressed by Mr. Manolov, Deputy President of CL Podkrepa. These emphasised the poor state of the economy in Bulgaria because of the Kosovo crisis. Nonetheless, OSH is a priority topic for union work and unions will have to play a proactive role. OSH strategies must be developed with European integration in mind, which means conforming with European legislation. The information gathered from the survey will greatly help the Bulgarian unions’ role.

Survey results

Annie Rice and Paula Repo gave an overview of the survey results as they applied to Bulgaria. The other countries present had not taken part in the survey, but had copies of the Bulgarian report to take home with them.

The coordinators of the two unions which participated in the survey also gave an overview of the logistics of carrying out the survey. While there were differences in coverage between the two Confederations - one tried to cover as many branches as possible whilst emphasising workplaces with serious problems, the other left such decisions to heads of sections with no emphasis on high risk workplaces - a common feature was the high response rate: 91% and 81% respectively. This meant that 371 replies were available for analysis, a figure that could have been much higher with more preparation in timing. A major problem was the fact that the questionnaires had to be translated and distributed in the summer months when many activists could not be properly mobilised. For this reason the number of questionnaires sent out was restricted. Because only unionised workplaces were canvassed, it was suggested that the survey results were not representative of Bulgarian workplaces in general and may have overestimated positive aspects of workplace safety. Nonetheless, the results gave a basic grounding on which to inform union policies,. And this was the primary aim of the survey. Participants who had not taken part in the survey expressed interest in using the questionnaire (it is available for use and a copy is attached). It was thought that the questionnaire could also be used in a refined form for individual sectors or issues, for example.

Key findings

Intensive training and group work in which the results of the survey were largely used, and discussions came up with the following key findings:

Expansion of the informal sector was identified by the participants as a major reason for the deterioration of workers health and safety. Bulgarian representatives reported that only 2.5 million people are paying their social security contributions, and approximately 1.5 million people are employed by the shadow economy. The latter are not covered by social security or any other occupational health and safety institutions. The shadow economy has also reached dangerous dimensions in other countries.

Unemployment was named as another major contributor to the deterioration of workers' health and safety. In the context of high unemployment, people live in constant fear of losing their jobs. According to the Bulgarian representatives, the unemployment rate is 35% in some regions of Bulgaria so that people are ready to work in any conditions. Consequently, their attitudes towards trade unions that try to fight for decent working conditions are often hostile. High unemployment has also resulted in the tendency for many workers to neglect their regular medical check-ups, because they are afraid that if their health is seriously damaged they could lose their jobs. The Bulgarian representatives stated that this neglect is one reason why national statistics on occupational illnesses do not reflect the real situation.

Introduction of liberal models and the consequent lack of social dimension in the labour market was perceived as an underlying factor in the overall low standard of living and its impact on workers' health and safety. The participants argued that liberal models do not allow the trade unions to defend workers' rights, which leads to a vicious circle of low levels of workers' remuneration, shrinking consumption, lack of investments, loss of jobs etc.

Implementation of existing laws was perceived as a major problem by all participants. The legal framework as such was considered to be comprehensive enough by most representatives. However, the Moldovan representatives observed a clear deterioration in their national legislation. As an example, they mentioned the 1995 law on labour conditions which was better than the new one.

Non-compliance with legal provisions and collective agreements by employers had increased in recent years. All the participants agreed that the private sector poses a bigger problem than does the public sector. Many enterprises are burdened by heavy debt and employers are not willing to pay for health and safety costs. The trade unions' position is also weaker in the private sector, and, in Moldova, it was stated that health and safety representatives are often dismissed in privatised enterprises. The Romanians pointed out that multinationals are so powerful that they can ignore the national legislation.

Lack of an institutional network for implementation of laws was a bigger problem in Moldova and Macedonia than in Bulgaria or Romania. Occupational health and safety committees were missing and the labour inspectorate only recently created in Moldova. The gap between the new legal framework and outdated social security provisions - pension, health care, health insurance etc. - received attention by all participants.

The weak administrative capacity of labour inspection manifested itself especially in the monitoring of working conditions. As the Moldovan representatives explained, state authorities and trade unions used to be responsible for workplace monitoring in the Soviet era, but since Moldova got its independence in 1991, the earlier scientific expertise has been relatively passive. State authorities are also often missing the basic resources in terms of equipment. As the Bulgarian representatives pointed out, the authorities lack even the necessary vehicles for visiting workplaces.

Mismatch between state expenditures and revenues was the main reason for the non-functioning of pension and health insurance systems. Most of the participants wished to see an improvement in pension and health insurance systems by increasing the employers' contribution to these funds.

On the other hand, they acknowledged the heavy financial and debt burden of companies as a reason for their unwillingness and/or incapacity to invest in occupational health and safety in the form of new production machinery, machine guards, regular maintenance of machinery, filters etc. All representatives were worried about the consequences of outmoded technology on occupational and environmental health. Although the shadow economy and violations of financial and economic discipline were strongly disapproved of by the trade unionists, they admitted that the tax, social security payments and debt burden force many companies to face the dilemma: bankruptcy or shadow economy.

A hostile attitude to trade unions was hampering efforts to improve the living and working conditions of their members and other employees in all participant countries. Hostile attitudes were often taken up by both employers and employees. The employers’ attitude manifested itself in dismissals of health and safety representatives, dissolving of health and safety committees, refusal to negotiate or to implement collective agreements. Sometimes employees also opposed a trade union presence or policy because they are afraid that trade unions' demands are going to lead to closures or bankruptcy of workplaces, or that introduction of new production technology would lead to a reduction in the workforce, or that better working conditions would lead to abolition of hazard pay.

Lack of motivation by the health and safety representatives and worker representatives was perceived as one of the reasons why these people were not effectively using those powers provided for in the legal framework.

Productivity as a key to structural problems. The Romanian representatives considered that the above-mentioned structural problems - shadow economy, unemployment, low standard of living - can be solved first and foremost through productivity and competitiveness. "First we have to increase the productivity and competitiveness of our products in order to be fully integrated in the modern market economy. Then we can reduce pollution and workplace hazards. And finally we can increase wages and salaries and job security." They were considering the use of international expertise in conducting relevant research on markets, production, productivity, marketing and feasible solutions on which the trade unions could build up a strategy in collaboration with the other social partners.

Financial aid from international institutions was another area considered in the quest to improve working conditions. The participants asked that the ILO consider a new approach to the Central and Eastern European countries, pointing out the need to develop a social dimension if the region is going to be developed to a prospective future market. They wondered if the ILO could introduce some economic incentives to encourage the development of occupational health and safety in the region. Ms. Dimitrina Dimitrova, representative of the ILO’s Bureau for Workers’ Activities, explained that the ILO cannot provide resources for investments, but it can have an impact on the allocation of World Bank and IMF resources. She made reference to the ongoing dialogue between the ILO and the international financial institutions.

Sanctions on employers who violate occupational health and safety standards. Although legislation provides for the closure of workplaces which do not fulfil required occupational health and safety standards, the participants were cautious in pursuing this option. It was acknowledged that this course of action would mean loss of jobs and also leave the already polluted environment untouched. Closure of workplaces was seen as the last possible resort. It was felt that in the first place, trade unions should motivate and train local health and safety representatives and committee members to actively take part in workplace monitoring and inspections, report the situation to the state authorities, especially to labour inspectorates, demand independent workplace inspections if necessary, make shortcomings public through the mass media, organise campaigns together with other relevant organizations, negotiate and agree action plans with the employer, etc. It was agreed that in the privatization process, purchasers should be obliged to invest in new production technology which would diminish workplace health and safety risks and work-related environmental pollution. However, it was also noted that new owners often violated the OHS- and environment-related clauses attached to sales contracts. In addition to these measures, the participants considered ways of influencing employers' attitudes so that they themselves would see the contribution of healthy and safe working conditions to productivity. In this respect, training was perceived as a primary method.

Trade union representation in workplace health and safety committees has to be improved. It was noted by the Bulgarian representatives that workers who are elected as worker representatives to local health and safety committees are not necessarily trade union members. This was confirmed by the ILO survey which showed that although all respondents were trade union members, only 7% were health and safety representatives. In Romania, the law providing for health and safety committees (passed in 1996) states that all committees are chaired by an employer representative. The Romanian representatives argued that neither employer representatives nor employee representatives should have dominance in the committees, but that the distribution of seats should be balanced. Also, they pointed out that trade unions are well represented in Romanian workplaces, with more than 70% being unionised.

Motivating health and safety committees and local trade union representatives was acknowledged as an important means of local action. All the participants listed a number of reasons for the lack of motivation: usually the representatives did not get paid for the time they spent on health and safety duties, they did not get enough credit or support for their work and/or they did not have adequate training for their duties etc. It was acknowledged that this situation was at odds with the key role these workers have in finding practical solutions to local health and safety problems. It is especially important in view of the weak administrative capacities of State authorities that local health and safety representatives should be able to perform a number of information, instruction and monitoring-related tasks.

The lack of health and safety clauses in collective framework agreements concluded at the national level, and the consequent need to develop local level collective agreements so that they reflect local health and safety needs, means that the local health and safety representatives should play an active role in local level bargaining and in drafting action plans at local level.

The need for additional training for local health and safety representatives and worker representatives was acknowledged, but so was the fact that organisation of this training is problematic when trade unions had lost most of their resources in the transition period. The Bulgarian representatives shared some encouraging results which had been achieved in recent years with the financial assistance of American and Swiss trade unions. Initial training structures had been set up, including trainers and two regional training centers, with another to be opened later in Sofia. Trade unions in Bulgaria had also translated a number of international documents, including ILO Conventions and Recommendations. The Bulgarians assessed that they now have the human resources for the production of training materials, but still need financial assistance from foreign and international organizations for printing costs.

Employers’ responsibility for accidents and its relation to hazard pay was discussed extensively. The participants wanted more information on legal frameworks and practices in other countries and at the international level. The Bulgarian representatives were disappointed with the new Bulgarian social insurance bill, which states that an employee who does not obey health and safety instructions would be deprived of benefits in case of an accident. The Moldovan representatives faced the same kind of situation, but they had been able to work out a compromise whereby an injured worker would not be entitled to compensation only if the accident was caused by the abuse of alcohol. This was challenged by the Romanian representatives who argued that if an employer allows an employee to work whilst he or she is drunk, then the employer should be responsible for any accident that occurs.

Hazard pay was very common in Bulgarian workplaces. It appears that it is not paid for entering "inherently dangerous jobs or occupations", but for working in conditions where health and safety precautions are neglected by the employer. Usually these conditions violate national legislation. Attitudes to hazard pay varied considerably among the participants. Although it was generally admitted that compensation for working in dangerous working environment is not a solution, many of the participants were reluctant to abandon the practice. They argued that the issue is very complex, mainly because hazard pay brings in extra income for workers who still earn twenty times less than their Western colleagues. It was also questioned if a part of workers' remuneration in Western economies may not be composed of hazard pay, even if it is not actually called this.

Those who opposed hazard pay argued that if hazard pay is accepted, this is an acknowledgement that a worker’s health is being destroyed. They admitted that improving working conditions might meet resistance from workers, because of the financial incentive for working in hazardous conditions. However, they considered it their duty to convince workers that there are alternative and better ways to increase living standards. They also reflected that it is not only the worker concerned who has to decide on whether to accept hazard pay or not because the decision has to be taken by the whole family. These representatives debated the idea of writing letters in which the union explains the dangers of hazardous working conditions to the families of the workers.

Transfer of dangerous machinery and substances. All the participants were concerned about the safety of machines and substances imported into Central and Eastern Europe. In most cases, workplaces had to rely on imports when replacing outmoded machinery, and trade unions were, from experience, concerned about safety devices on imported machinery. An additional concern was over the possibility that chemicals banned in Western countries are imported to CEE.

The participants asked for information on international regulations concerning the exportation of banned chemicals, international standards on machine and chemical safety, and legal frameworks and practices in Western countries. Ms. Annie Rice, representative of the ILO’s SafeWork Programme, explained that as far as she knows there are no global standards that would prohibit the import or export of banned or restricted substances, but that there are international standards on information that needs to be communicated to the importing country. According to the ILO Convention on Chemicals (C170), "when in an exporting member State all or some uses of hazardous chemicals are prohibited for reasons of safety and health at work, this fact and the reasons for it shall be communicated by the exporting member State to any importing country." Similarly, according to ILO Convention on the Prevention of Major Industrial Accidents (C174), "when, in an exporting member State, the use of hazardous substances, technologies or processes is prohibited as a potential source of a major accident, the information on this prohibition and the reasons for it shall be made available by the exporting member State to any importing country". Similarly, the United Nation’s Environment Programme (UNEP) has developed its "Prior Informed Consent" for alerting importing countries to the dangers of banned and restricted substances and materials. Ms. Rice also raised the question of international trade considerations taking precedence over safety and health, citing an upcoming case brought by Canada before the World Trade Organisation where a decision was expected over the right of a country (France) to ban asbestos.

It should also be noted that there is increasing international interest and activity concerning the harmonization of labelling for hazardous substances, particularly in the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), which has produced some 1,500 user-friendly International Chemical Safety Cards. These cards are available on Internet in English, French and Spanish, and also on a CD-ROM published by the ILO’s Bureau for Workers' Activities and its SafeWork programme.

Concerning machinery and equipment, a source of international standards is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The ISO covers all standardization fields except that for electrical and electronic engineering, which are the responsibility of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

The survey made an important contribution to the knowledge base of the trade unions in the Region by adding a new, subjective, experience-based, dimension to the existing legal, institutional, technological and financial dimensions. Participants recognised that obtaining this valuable information was hardly affordable by the national centres in the Region given their financial constraints. They also gave a very high appreciation of the design and carrying out of the seminar, especially the participatory training methods which allowed for practical implementation of new knowledge aimed at development of trade union strategy. This strategy should involve continuous efforts to raise awareness on the shop floor, to strengthen the expertise of trade union OSH experts (most of whom have a technical knowledge background in engineering, chemistry, physics or medicine, but may lack the extra skills to appropriately address workplace health and safety), and to reaffirm commitment of the trade union leadership to health and safety.

• BULGARIA:

  • CITUB:

    • Ivan Kokalov

    • Todor Todorov

    • Alexander Kanev

    • Elka Arnaudova

    • Elena Vassileva

  • PODKREPA CL:

    • Dimitar Manolov

    • Paraskeva Achkova

    • Nikola Minchev

    • Todor Birindjiev

    • Ruslan Angelov

• MACEDONIA:

  • CCM (Federation of Trade Unions of Macedonia):

    • Liljana Jankulovska

    • Milan Manovski

• MOLDOVA:

  • FGSRM (General Federation of Trade Unions of Moldova):

    • Elena Manolache

    • Ion Cucu

    • Vassile Mamaliga

• ROMANIA:

  • CNSLR-FRATIA

    • Corneliu Constantinoaia

    • Dragos Somesan

  • Democratic Trade Union Confederation of Romania:

    • Zoltan Fodor

    • Pavel Traian

  • Cartel ALFA:

    • Doru Hodos

    • Ioan Zaharia

  • Resource Persons:

    • Dimitrina Dimitrova, ILO ACTRAV

    • Annie Rice, ILO SafeWork Programme

    • Paula Repo, Consultant

[Index |  | Introduction | Baltic Region | Central Europe | South-East Europe | Ukraine and Russia ]
[ Participants | Seminar proceedings | Survey results | Key findings | Conclusions ]