Transcript Darba vides riska faktoru noteikšana un novērtēšana

Multi-Country Workshop on Developing Systems for
Occupational Health and Safety through Social
Dialogue INT MARKT 51421
Transformation in
Occupational Health and
Safety systems:
lessons learnt - LATVIA
Brussels, Belgium
Dates: 18-19 February 2013
Vanadzins I., Matisane L.
Institute of Occupational Safety and Environmental Health, Riga Stradins university, Latvia
[email protected]
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
1
Contents
 Introduction to Institute of Occupational
health and environmental health
 Development of Latvian occupational health
and safety (OH&S) system
 Legal framework for Social dialogue
 «Current statuss» of Social dialogue
 Research data supporting need for change
 Way forward – what do we do?
 Lessons learnt
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2
Latvian Institute of Occupational
safety and environmental health
 Status:
 University agency supervised by National
Information Board (Ministry of Welfare, Labour
inspection and Social partners)
 Part of work plan approved by Information
Board
 Role in OH&S system
 Monitoring of OH&S and support to policy
makers
 Research including specific topics
 Information and training (employers and
employees, OH&S professionals)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Latvian Institute of Occupational
safety and environmental health
 Functions
 Training (university undergraduates and
postgraduates, OH&S experts, employers and
employees)
 Research (applied and fundamental)
 Information (campaigns, materials, webpage
etc)
 Services (experts and laboratory)
 Funding
 Mixed: University (training), National insurance
again occupational diseases and accidents
(information and training), Various sources
(research and services)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Development of Latvian OH&S
system
 Work environment in Latvia has changed
rapidly over last 15-20 years due to global
changes and changes in Latvian (OH&S)
system
 Rather typical «country in transition»
 2 stage legal reform
 1993-2001 – «Soviet style» OH&S system
intended for medium and large companies with
accent to compensation rather than prevention
 Since 2002 – EU based OH&S legislation with
~95% requirements transposed (EU Member
since 2004)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
5
Development of Latvian
OH&S system
 Major survey introduced in 2005-2006 to
gather data on real situation (EU Social
Fund)
 Legal requirements reviewed in 20072009 to reduce administrative burden
 OH&S Development strategy (20082013) with two 3 year implementation
programs adopted based on EU OH&S
Strategy
 Good success in some areas and NOT
SO GOOD in other
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
6
Development of Latvian OH&S
system
 Good situation
 System of training and diagnostics of
occupational diseases
 Building up of training for various
OH&S experts
 Setting up of external OH&S system
 Research support to policy makers
continued
 Information board (coordination of
activities) established
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
7
Development of Latvian OH&S
system
 No so good situation
 Reporting and investigation of
occupational accidents (many
reasons...)
 Information and awareness rising for
employers, general public and workers
 General attitude towards safety and
health in broader sense
 «Grey economy» that is linker with
poorer OH&S performance
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
8
Total number of first time registered occupational
patients and occupational diseases in Latvia
during 1996-2010 per 100 000 employees
350.0
306.9
300.0
303.1
250.0
200.0
182.7
181.4
150.9
150.0
163.4
140.5
139.3
123.2
116.3
100.0
44.8
50.0
0.0
20.4 26.3
11.5
11.9
80.8
77.2 75.5
92.6
55.0
35.1
15.1
21.8 24.7 34.5
43.8
98.9
88.1
69.3
54.2
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Institute of Occupational
Safety
and Environmental
Incidence
of OD per 100
Health, Riga, Latvia
000
Number of occupational patients per 100 000
Number of first registered occupational
diseases (absolute numbers) and registered
occupational physicians
1386
1400
1200
990
1000
786
800
600
185 174
200
82
0
35
109 118
71
232
211
149
109
150
180
433
332
212
250
286
325
776
589
554
400
782
351
375 395
409 419
440
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Total number of patients
Number of occupational physicians
10
Incidence of occupational diseases (per
100 000) in some selected industries
500.0
450.0
430.2
400.0
350.0
313.0
306.9
300.0
250.0
237.1
200.0
181.4
150.0
150.9
145.8
100.0
80.8
50.0
0.0
20.4
10.3
10.1
26.3
9.4
9.6
35.1
26.9
15.3
44.8
22.9
22.4
33.3
24.6
92.6
76.2
22.4
229.5
200.3
139.3
116.3
104.3
77.7
27.9
40.7
182.7
163.4 162.7
98.9
66.2
51.8
73.6
82.2 89.8
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Agriculture and forestry
Transport
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Manufacturing
Health care
Construction
Average OD number
11
Comparision of total accident rates
(per 100 000) in EU (data: Eurostat)
7027
7052
7000
6917
6728
6546
6217
6520
6225
6054
6000
5715
5098
5000
5021
5059
4933
4229
4106
5112
4958
4908
4089
3435
3374
4757
4088
4000
3372
5533
4924
3137
3000
4213
4016
3046
4691
4380
4242
4082
3841
2973
3685
3529
2914
3674
3618
3456
3329
2847
3306
2864
3176
3233
3167
3031
3276
3077
3125
3014
3008
3098
3013
2758
2860
2000
1494
1000
1654
1217
167
1074
134
1425
1433
1329
1475
ES (15)
1997
1998
150
147
1999
Belgium
Germany
Institute
of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
1204
1027
2000
2001
Ireland
1262
1252
142
148
0
1996
1347
1500
1291
138
1509
2002
Spain
1148
1129
135
2003
1217
138
2004
Finland
1130
1289
Sweden
997
1088
158
151
2005
1469
2006
167
2007
Latvia
12
Comparision of lethal accident rates
(per 100 000) in EU (data: Eurostat)
7.5
7.2
7.0
7.1
7
6.6
6.3
5.9
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.5
5.9
6.0
5.7
5.5
5.0
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.9
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.6
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
2.8
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.3
2.12.1
2.4
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.0
2.6
2.5
2.5
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.1
3.1
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.2
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.2
2.0
1.2
2.9
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.7
3.5
3.2
2.4
2.0
3.5
3.7
3.3
3.1
5.2
2.0
1.8
1.7
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.0
1996
ES (15)
1997
1998
1999
Institute of Occupational
Belgium
Germany
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2000
2001
Ireland
2002
Spain
2003
2004
Finland
2005
Sweden
2006
2007
13
Latvia
Comparision of lethal accident rates (per 100 000)
in EU (2005 – 2011)
10
9.2
8.5
9
7.3
8
7
6,1
6
5
5.9
5,5
6,0
4,1
3.9
4.5
4
4,4
3.2
2.4
2.3
1
3,7
3.2
3
2
4,6
3.2
4,1
3,0
2,8
3,8
3.1
2.1
Latvija
Lithuania
Estonia
Average EU
0
2005
2006
2007
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2008
2009
2010
2011
Coverage of OH&S services in
selected industries
Textile industry
10.0
Paper processing
13.4
Food processing
36.1
Metal working
40.0
Wood working
47.8
Health care
56.6
Construction
60.2
Average 2006
22.2
Average 2010
%
30.4
0.0
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
15
Legal framework for Social
dialogue
 Based on EU Framework directive and
requirements
 Legally well developed and established at
company level
 At national level – trade union representation
sligthly falling despite efforts
 Mixture and confusion between trade unions
and labour right representatives
 Inherited sceptical attitude towards social
dialogue
 Reality?
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
16
Data source
 Data from 2 consecutive surveys on
working conditions in Latvia in 2006 and
2010 (supported by European Social
Fund) including interviews with:
 More than 1000 employers
 More than 2500 employees
 More than 200 OH&S experts
 Third survey going on until March
data will be analysed by the end
year
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
17
Number of companies with workers
representatives in Latvia
Type of
represent
ation
% of companies
with workers representives
2006
2010
1-9
10-49
50-249
>250
1-9
10-49
50-249
>250
Labour
code
trustees
4.9
15.6
29.1
46.1
6.4
19.5
32.9
42.0
Trade
unions
0.6
7.4
27.4
36.0
0.1
8.8
37.6
42.7
Workers
OH&S
trustees
4.6
18.8
31.9
37.8
4.0
20.2
33.4
47.3
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Information and awareness
 Major problems with lack of information and
awareness confirmed by survey in 2006
 Leading also to lack of social dialogue in
broader sense of the terminology
 Based on this Latvia have changed strategy
and started information and awareness
activities for all target groups and sectors
 Experts support involved in information activities
 Focuss – good OH&S (and social dialogue)
is good for you and your business
 Efforts to involve new target groups
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
19
How many (%) of your employees are
exposed to any risks at workplace?
100
16
90
80
7
70
60
50
6
31
5
10
7
17
11
40
100%
21
30
80-99%
20
43
24
10
40-59%
less than 40%
0
%
60-79%
2010
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2006
None is exposed
20
Have your participated in risk
assessment at your workplace?
11% - NO
riska
19% - Yes, I
took part in it
4% - yes, but it
was so formal
4% - my
colleagues took
59% - NO, I
have not
participated
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
TOP - 5 work environment risks
– Employers think differently!
Problem – only when we come to joint
understanding we can agree on joint actions....
 All agree – employers and workers:
•
•
•
Forced postures
Manual handling
Repetative movements
•
•
Work with computer
Working outside
•
•
Work with customers
Time pressure
 Employers:
 Workers:
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Political «contribution» to
development of social dialogue
 All decisions accepted by OH&S subcouncil
of National Tripartite committee
 At national level all working groups,
conferences etc. includes social partners
 As of 2012 focuss on regional activities
and efforts to involve people locally to
facilitate social dialogue and working
together
 Topic for 2013 – Accidents & nearmisses and simple solutions in OH&S
(Preventing together)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
23
«New» target groups
 Efforts to approach new target groups to
«mainstream» OH&S in other topics and
improve knowledge and dialogue
 Advertising industry
 Purchasing and tendering experts
 School children and teachers
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
24
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
http://www.president.lv/pk/content/?cat_id=601&type=image
&id=1929&page=2&pos=2&lng=en
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
www.swedbank.lv 14.11.2011.
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
New principle in preparation of
training and information materials
 Most of information and training
materials are made on special topics for
several target groups and using several
media
 Topics approved and suggested by social
partners, approved by National information
board
 Usually version for experts and employers
and special version for employees
 When possible supported by visual materials
(posters, films etc.)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
30
Example
Short pocket size
handbook for
workers supported
by animated
cartoon (also in
RUS and ENG)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
31
Example – Chemical safety
 Changes in REACH system and new
requirements of CLP
 Assistance to changes on legal regulations
 Elaboration of brochure for experts on new
requirements of CLP
 Poster of new labelling requirements
 In 2012 – regional seminars on new
requirements for experts
 In 2013 – additional information materials
on chemical safety for workers using them at
workplaces
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
32
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
33
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
34
Support to EU
OSHA
campaigns
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
35
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
36
Can this make difference for
employers?
 Can social dialogue and «more OH&S»
make difference to employers?
 YES!
 The survey data shows that employers
that are either involved in employers
organisations or have any
representation of workers at their
companies PERFORM BETTER with
regards to OH&S
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
37
How many (%) of your employees are
exposed to any risks at workplace?
%
100
7
43
25
80
60
40
20
27
16
31
0
2006
2010 NO
workers reps
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2010 WITH
workers reps
38
How has the level of OH&S changed
during last 5 years?
25
%
20
20
18
19
15
9
10
5
5
Pieaudzis
Samazinājies
0
1998
2002
-5
2006
2010-ir
2010-nav
darbinieku darbinieku
pārstāvji
pārstāvji
2010 WITH
workers reps
-10
1998. – Worklife barometer
2002. – Worklife barometer
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
2010 NO
workers reps
2006. – Survey Working conditions and risks
2010. – Survey Working conditions and risks
% of companies with risk assessment
and action plan on OH&S
2010 – NO workers
representatives
26
2010 – WITH workers representatives
2010
56
30
2006
22
%
0
10
20
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
30
40
50
60
% of companies with risk assessment
and action plan on OH&S
2010 – NO member of
Employers organizations
28
2010 – member of emppoyers organizations
2010
30
2006
0
10
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
41
22
%
20
30
40
50
41
% of companies with risk assessment and
action plan on OH&S
2010 – NO common agreement
28
2010 – WITH common agreement
46
2010
30
2006
0
10
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
22
20
30
%
40
50
42
Main lessons learnt
 Main message is simple – PREVENTING
TOGETHER must be the message of any
OH&S strategy
 Message for bussiness leaders shall be social dialogue is good for business!
 Legal and institutional framework is essential
and must include all key partners
 Information and training must include all
target groups and OH&S must be included in
all topics for all ages
 Use all available funding (including EU)
Institute of Occupational
Safety and Environmental
Health, Riga, Latvia
43