• Index Seminar Reports  • Introduction  • Baltic Region • Participants • Seminar proceedings • Survey results • Key findings • ILO and Safe Work • OSHE Networks in the region • Information Management Methodology: Trade Union Websites and OSHE • Health and Safety in Agriculture • Conclusions  • Central Europe  • South-East Europe  • 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 the Baltic Region

The Baltics seminar grouped 20 experts in occupational safety and health from trade union confederations in the Baltic Sea region (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland). Most of the participants (see list at the end of this seminar report) were technical experts by training, responsible for occupational health and safety issues in their unions which represented workers mainly in the shipping industry, but also in health care services, forestry, mining, construction, agriculture and chemicals. Some were workers' education specialists.

The three Baltic countries share many common features, mostly stemming from the recent past when all were parts of the Soviet Union. This, together with their geographical and - to a limited degree - economic relations, provide sufficient ground for cooperation with trade unions of the Baltic Sea region. Also, the trade union confederations have good contacts among themselves. However, there are important differences that should be appreciated.

One of the biggest needs identified is in the area of managing information. Maintaining and sharing a solid base of knowledge on the social, economic and industrial environment of the nation and of the region is necessary for a well performing trade union. It is necessary for professional representation of the interests of the trade unions' constituency in collective bargaining, legislation and the functioning of the society. Trade unions should act as one of the most important institutions to sustain the democratic reforms and to support the credibility of equitable social progress. To support efforts to bring about equitable social progress, managing information will address gender (roles of men and women in society and the workplace) in the different areas indicated. Trade unions will thus be better prepared to manage different aspects of information. Thus, an important element of this seminar was managing information concerning occupational health and safety and use of the questionnaire and data processing as a means to collect adequate information which will prepare unions to act on behalf of their members.

Ellen Rosskam and Beth Goodson gave an overview of the survey results as they applied to Lithuania and Estonia.

Key findings

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

Unemployment was named as a major contributor to the deterioration of workers' health and safety. In the context of high unemployment, mainly due to changes which occurred as a result of the Russian crisis and loss of traditional trading partners, people live in constant fear of losing their jobs. According to representatives from the Baltics, there is a problem due to the backward technologies inherited from the ex-Soviet Union and there is a lack of investment which has resulted in a hazardous environment. In some regions people are ready to work in any conditions. The new investors as a rule do not welcome organised workers. Consequently, workers’ attitudes towards active representation to fight for decent working conditions are sometimes mixed due to fear and lack of understanding.

High unemployment has also provoked also another tendency which deteriorates workers health and safety. Hazardous working conditions are on the increase and in many industries workers are afraid to report incidents. In the forestry industry, for example, many workplace accidents are not recorded.

There was a general agreement that workers did not value their own health because of the current stressful job market and they do not recognize the long-term consequences.

Introduction of liberal models and the consequent lack of social dimension in the labour market was perceived to be an underlying factor in the overall low standard of living and its impact on workers' health and safety. The impact of globalization is such that new entrepreneurs set high standards of productivity to local enterprises, but in fact workers receive only one-third to one-fourth of the benefits and guarantees of workers in the parent companies. Such transnational practices have a tendency to use cheap labour and import raw materials and export the finished product, and trade unions find it difficult to defend workers' rights.

Consumption-related poverty has increased in most transition economies. Growing inequality in the distribution of consumption is also important in explaining the increase in poverty. Changes in income distribution have been in detriment of the poor. The top richest echelon of the population has increased its benefits and standard of living, and the lowest strata has experienced a drop in living conditions with negative consequences. Many workers do not have their social security contributions paid adequately, often due to difficulties of enterprises or undeclared employment.

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, but due to dismantling of existing labour inspectorates and changes in training systems which neglected workers health and safety, these legal provisions were more relics of the past protective system than an actual operational framework.

Non-compliance with legal provisions and collective agreements by the employers had increased in recent years. The problem is significantly greater in the private sector than in the public sector, mainly because the trade unions' position is weaker in private sector, and health and safety representatives were unrecognised in many privatised enterprises. It was noted that there is a two-tiered system within many multinationals, which do not apply the same provisions in transition countries as they do at home.

Lack of an institutional network for implementation of new laws was a problem. Occupational health and safety committees were lacking and the labour inspectorate greatly neglected. The weak administrative capacity of social institutions manifested itself especially in the monitoring of working conditions. As in most transition countries, trade unions used to be responsible for workplace monitoring in the Soviet era, but this has been given over to state authorities which lack expertise and resources. Systematic interventions are therefore largely missing.

Due to the lack of capacity of the labour inspectorate, occupational accident and disease statistics do not fully reflect the situation. According to Estonian representatives, the employer is not legally obliged to investigate accidents when they are first reported, as these are taken into account only if they involve a leave of three or more days. Thus national statistics are not accurately reported. Due to a lack of occupational safety and health inspectors large enterprises might receive a visit once in 5 years and SMEs only once in 15 years, another reason why national statistics on occupational illnesses do not reflect the actual situation. Many of the representatives from trade unions present indicated that their unions are making proposals to involve trade union health and safety representatives in work site inspections.

The participants recognized the heavy financial and debt burden of companies as a reason for their unwillingness and/or incapacity to invest in occupational health and safety prevention and control The Latvian representatives indicated they are reviving the old "safety days" - this has been done in the older companies, but in newer enterprises, the unions have not been able to promote this idea.

Ambiguous attitudes to trade unions was hampering efforts to improve the living and working conditions of the employees in all participant countries. Sometimes hostile or indifferent attitudes were taken by both employers and employees. Employers’ attitudes were manifested in dismissing or ignoring health and safety representatives, dissolving health and safety committees, refusing collective bargaining or implementation of the collective agreement. Sometimes also employees oppose the trade union presence, action or policy, because they are afraid that trade unions' demands are going to lead to a closure or bankruptcy of the workplace, or that introduction of new production technology is going to lead to the reduction of workforce, or that better working conditions may lead to questioning hazard pay.

Considerable discussion was given to hazard pay since it is used as a means of taking home higher salaries. Since high priority is not set on workers' health as a long-term objective, unions agreed that they need to reassess ways of ensuring workers have higher salaries without compromising the health of the worker through hazardous working conditions.

Lack of motivation by health and safety representatives and worker representatives was perceived as one of the reasons why they did not effectively use those powers given by the legal framework. It was proposed that more training and motivation is needed to ensure that health and safety representatives receive support and strategies to improve work site safety. More information and data collection done at the local level would help motivate local workers toward this end and encourage collective bargaining agreements to include clauses relating the workers' health and safety.

The Baltic representatives considered that the afore-mentioned structural problems can be solved only through better productivity and competitiveness and linking cost effectiveness to better working conditions. Employers and enterprises have to realize that bad working conditions cost money to the employer. By establishing cooperative relations with the employer, productivity could be increased which would motivate the employer to see the economic results. It was felt that more analysis is needed in conducting relevant research on markets, production, productivity, marketing, cost analysis and feasible solutions, on grounds of which the trade union representatives could built up a strategy together with the other social partners.

International institutions. The trade union representatives requested more information on international labour standards regarding occupational health and safety and diagnostic means to come up with credible statistical information in the Baltic region of the Central and Eastern European countries. There is a need to develop the social dimension, if the region is going to be developed to a prospective future market. There were indications that special attention needs to be given to health and safety of workers and working conditions by international financial institutions in their advisory capacity to governments and impact of reform measures. There was also a need to find user friendly institutions and networks to assist unions in developing national level policies.

Workplace violations and pressure on employers. What to do with the employers who violate occupational health and safety standards? Although the previous laws had provisions, actual implementation is not applied, and new drafting of labour codes do not always reflect stipulation about working conditions or consequences of neglect.

It was felt that in the first place, all trade unions should activate the local health and safety committees and representatives in workplace monitoring, collection of samples etc., report the situation to the state authorities, especially the labour inspectorates, ask for independent national and international experts to inspect the workplace, make the shortcomings public through mass media, organize campaigns together with other relevant organizations, negotiate and agree action plans with the employer etc. Above all, it was felt that trade unions could motivate local support through information gathering on strategic areas that could be negotiated with the employer so that small successes would lead to greater confidence of the capacity of the union to act on behalf of the workers.

It was agreed that in the privatization process, purchasers should be obliged to invest in new production technology that would diminish health and safety risks in the workplace and its environment. However, it was also noticed that the new owners often violate OHS- and environment-related clauses attached to the sales contract. In the case of transnationals, examples were made of getting trade union and consumer solidarity with civil society concerning practices of companies based in the Nordic countries.

In addition to these measures, trade union representatives wanted to find ways of influencing employers' attitudes so that they themselves would realize the contribution of healthy and safe working conditions to productivity. In this respect, training was perceived as a primary method, especially for local health and safety representatives. However, organizing appropriate training was a problem, because trade unions no longer have access to resources, which they had prior to the transition period.

There should also be an improvement of trade union representation in health and safety committees. It was noted by the representatives that trade union members are not necessarily those workers who are elected as worker representatives to local health and safety committees. This was confirmed by the ILO survey which showed that only 12% of Estonian and 7% of Lithuanian respondents to the survey were health and safety representatives. All respondents were trade union members. Because of the changes in enterprises and workplaces, often 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, they did not have adequate training for their duties, etc. It was acknowledged that this situation was created difficulties for unions in finding practical solutions for local health and safety problems.

Considering the weak administrative capacities of state authorities, trade union representatives wanted the local health and safety representatives to perform a number of information, instruction and monitoring related tasks that in other circumstances would be taken care of by the state authorities.

The lack of health and safety clauses in collective agreements concluded at national level, and the consequent need to develop local level collective agreements so that they reflect local health and safety concerns was also addressed. The participants wanted local health and safety representatives to play an active role in local level bargaining and in drafting action plans for the local level.

Compensation for hazardous work was very common in Baltic workplaces. Attitudes to hazard pay varied a lot among the participants. Although everyone admitted that compensation for working in a dangerous working environment is not a solution, many of the trade union representatives said workers were reluctant to give up this practice because they cannot afford to lose the "extra" pay. They argued that the issue is very complex, because hazard pay brings the extra income for workers who still earn much less than their Western colleagues. However, they considered it as their duty to convince the workers that there are alternative and better ways to increase the standard of living and that a trade-off of health for jobs should never be considered an option.

All representatives were concerned about the safety of machines and chemical substances imported and used in CEE. In most cases, workplaces had to rely on imports when replacing outmoded machinery, and trade unions were disappointed when the safety devices of new machinery did not meet standards of the European Union or industrialized countries. The representatives were also concerned about the lack of investment and continued use of outmoded machinery and equipment and work organization, which contributed to hazards at the work place.

There was also concern that personal protective equipment was not appropriate or was lacking, especially considering the extreme climatic conditions of the Baltic region. Trade unions asked for information on appropriate protective equipment, international regulations concerning the exportation of banned chemicals, international standards on machine and chemical safety, and legal frameworks and practices in Western countries.

Ms. Ellen Rosskam of the SafeWork programme of the ILO facilitated the 2.5 day workshop, presenting the results of the Lithuania survey, and using direct learning methodology and group work to help the trade unions determine how best they could use the results of the surveys. Areas of focus included:

• Risk mapping;

• Practical approaches to ergonomics for improving working conditions;

• Training Materials (Your Health and Safety at Work: CD Rom version, and the CD Rom version of the Workers’ Education and Environment Kit published by the ILO’s Bureau for Workers' Activities)

Mr. Charles Woolfsen of the European Council of Occupational Safety, Health and Environment (ECOSHE) and the plans for contributions from the ILO and trade unions in the conference scheduled for October, 2000 in Lithuania. The participants made various suggestions on how they could contribute to this meeting as it was strengthening a network of active players on health and safety issues in Central and Eastern Europe.

As a result of advisory services provided by the ILO technical cooperation project (RER/MO1/98/FIN), trade union confederations in the Baltic States were approached to find their priorities concerning communication and information management. In order for unions to be active and dynamic in using information management as a tool, they must identify priority areas where they can use such skills as processing, analysing and organizing information resulting from their own research and the use of external sources. Such information would cover areas where linkages with health and safety could be made on specific subjects, for example:

• The economy as a whole;

• Social development (income, poverty, social security, housing, pensions, etc.);

• Different sectors of the economy (industry / services, public / private, domestic / foreign, etc.);

• Health services, workplace safety and environmental issues;

• The processes of globalization and regional integration, particularly effects of the probable accession of the Baltic states into the European Union.

Paula Repo, an independent consultant who has been working in the ILO OSHE Survey, showed how linkages could be created to improve occupational health and safety training and union know-how. A practical on-line demonstration on the Internet showed that it was possible to connect via trade union networks and make links to other institutions, which would be useful in research, communication and data collection. As all Baltic unions interviewed indicated they wished to set up websites or were already in the process of improving existing ones, the information was very useful and timely to enable health and safety representatives to see how such technology could strengthen efforts to promote occupational health and safety policies

Ms. Repo also explained the experiences gained in the questionnaire of the ILO OSHE Survey for the CEE countries and clarified areas on the use of the questionnaire: keeping the questionnaire brief, concentration on a few industries, focusing on issues which need attention and further clarifications which would help avoid contradictions or misunderstandings in the questionnaire. In particular, the target group for the questionnaire must be clear and be useful to motivate the worker representatives in their on-going work on safety and health.

Other areas discussed were maintaining and developing a training system for trade union experts and leaders; using participatory training methods, dissemination of printed and other forms of information both within the membership of the organization as well as to prospective members and social partners, public authorities, and the general media. Such information would play a central role in organizing campaigns, some of which could be focused on occupational health and safety issues.

Information was given on the current preparatory discussions on the proposed ILO Convention on Health and Safety in Agriculture, the first discussion which was to take place during the International Labour Conference in June, 2000. Ms. Elizabeth Goodson, Senior Workers' Activities Specialist in ILO Budapest, explained the reasons behind the Convention and the responses of participants' governments to the ILO report. Agriculture is one of the three most dangerous industries and millions of deaths are caused by pesticides, machinery/storage, livestock and industrial diseases. Agriculture is globally the largest employer which covers 50 per cent of the workforce and where 70 per cent of child labour is found. However there are lower standards in legislation for agriculture workers. For this reason, trade union action was important to make the discussions reflect problems at the work place during the discussions on the proposed convention during 2000-2001. Representatives from the trade union confederations were asked to promote agricultural unions as part of their delegations to the ILO conference and for the trade unions to hold preparatory seminars and workshops as part of information awareness raising. Networking and use of lobbies by trade unions would help promote basic worker rights.

The direct active training method used during the workshop in the working groups gave good ideas to the participants on how they might use this methodology to revitalize training for their own members in health and safety. The Baltic representatives recorded some encouraging results that had been achieved in recent years with the financial assistance from Nordic trade unions in legal advisory services and general training programmes to strengthen trade unions, but felt they need more support to develop adequate national and regional networks to have better access to information to improve health and safety for workers.

• Estonia

  • Julia Dmitrieva EAKL

  • Harri Taliga EAKL

  • Ðlo Kristjuhan TALO

• Latvia

  • Lidija Upmane LBAS

  • Julius-Aris Smildzins LBAS

  • Janis Krastins LBAS

  • Andris Kravalis LBAS

  • Ziedonis Antapsons LBAS

• Lithuania

  • Henrikas Jaksta LPSS

  • Vygantas Vaidakavicius LPSS

  • Ramunas Markauskas LDS

  • Aldona Jasinskiene LDS

  • Regina Dapsyte Lithuanian TU Center

  • Laimute Taleikiene Lithuanian TU Center

  • Irena Ubartiene LDF

  • Ruta Pauriene LDF

• Poland

  • Wieslawa Tarnowska OPZZ

  • Ireneusz Wiszowaty OPZZ

  • Bozena Borys-Szopa Solidarnosc

  • Anna Malinowska Solidarnosc

• Resource persons

  • Beth Goodson, ILO-CEET

  • Ellen Rosskam, 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 | ILO and Safe Work | OSHE Networks in the region | Information Management Methodology: Trade Union Websites and OSHE | Health and Safety in Agriculture | Conclusions ]