Intensity of the Work Process: Reasons for Inefficiency of Factor Evaluation

S. Dontsov, P. Gabriel, V. Burak
{"title":"Intensity of the Work Process: Reasons for Inefficiency of Factor Evaluation","authors":"S. Dontsov, P. Gabriel, V. Burak","doi":"10.24000/0409-2961-2023-3-48-56","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The transformation of the procedure for hygienic assessment of the intensity of the labor process in the Russian Federation is considered. Special assessment of working conditions, which later replaced certification, had already different goals and objectives, respectively, the change in the goal setting directly affected, among other things, the methodological approach to assessment. Federal Law № 416-FZ dated December 28, 2013 «On the Special Assessment of Working Conditions» introduced an explanation of the intensity of the labor process as indicators of sensory load on the central nervous system and sense organs of employees, which led to a deep sequestration of the assessed indicators. The number of considered indicators was reduced from 23 to 7, which is contrary to common sense and realities in the workplaces. Primitivism and bias in the assessment of working conditions according to the methodology of Order No. 33n of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated January 24, 2014, led to the need to introduce an accredited methodology for assessing factors of the working environment and, in addition to the existing one, issue orders that take into account the specifics of conducting a special assessment of working conditions for a number of manufacturing industries. The experimental and statistical evaluation of the efficiency of the existing approaches to assessing the intensity of the labor process showed that these indicators are less and less identified by the experts. In addition, when conducting studies (measurements) of the identified indicators, they are assigned to the 1st or 2nd class of working conditions, i.e., there is a process of «overflow» of the number of jobs with «harmfulness» into the number of jobs with the indicator «severity of the labor process». These collisions confirm the idea that a special assessment of working conditions is unsuitable for a real assessment of the working conditions in terms of the intensity of the labor process, since they mislead the state, owners and employees. Under the current conditions, the applied methodology for assessing the intensity of the labor process in the procedure for a special assessment of the working conditions is outdated and uninformative.","PeriodicalId":35650,"journal":{"name":"Bezopasnost'' Truda v Promyshlennosti","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bezopasnost'' Truda v Promyshlennosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24000/0409-2961-2023-3-48-56","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The transformation of the procedure for hygienic assessment of the intensity of the labor process in the Russian Federation is considered. Special assessment of working conditions, which later replaced certification, had already different goals and objectives, respectively, the change in the goal setting directly affected, among other things, the methodological approach to assessment. Federal Law № 416-FZ dated December 28, 2013 «On the Special Assessment of Working Conditions» introduced an explanation of the intensity of the labor process as indicators of sensory load on the central nervous system and sense organs of employees, which led to a deep sequestration of the assessed indicators. The number of considered indicators was reduced from 23 to 7, which is contrary to common sense and realities in the workplaces. Primitivism and bias in the assessment of working conditions according to the methodology of Order No. 33n of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated January 24, 2014, led to the need to introduce an accredited methodology for assessing factors of the working environment and, in addition to the existing one, issue orders that take into account the specifics of conducting a special assessment of working conditions for a number of manufacturing industries. The experimental and statistical evaluation of the efficiency of the existing approaches to assessing the intensity of the labor process showed that these indicators are less and less identified by the experts. In addition, when conducting studies (measurements) of the identified indicators, they are assigned to the 1st or 2nd class of working conditions, i.e., there is a process of «overflow» of the number of jobs with «harmfulness» into the number of jobs with the indicator «severity of the labor process». These collisions confirm the idea that a special assessment of working conditions is unsuitable for a real assessment of the working conditions in terms of the intensity of the labor process, since they mislead the state, owners and employees. Under the current conditions, the applied methodology for assessing the intensity of the labor process in the procedure for a special assessment of the working conditions is outdated and uninformative.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作过程的强度:因素评价无效的原因
考虑了俄罗斯联邦劳动过程强度卫生评估程序的转变。后来取代认证的工作条件特别评估已经分别有了不同的目标和目的,目标设定的变化直接影响到评估的方法。联邦法律№ 日期为2013年12月28日的416-FZ《关于工作条件的特殊评估》介绍了对劳动过程强度的解释,将其作为员工中枢神经系统和感觉器官的感觉负荷指标,这导致了评估指标的深度固定。考虑的指标数量从23个减少到7个,这违背了常识和工作场所的现实。根据俄罗斯劳工部2014年1月24日第33n号命令的方法,在评估工作条件时存在的原始性和偏见,导致需要引入一种经认可的评估工作环境因素的方法,除现有方法外,发布命令,考虑到对一些制造业的工作条件进行特别评估的具体情况。对评估劳动过程强度的现有方法的效率进行的实验和统计评估表明,专家们越来越不确定这些指标。此外,在对确定的指标进行研究(测量)时,将其分配给第一类或第二类工作条件,即具有“危害性”的工作数量“溢出”为具有“劳动过程严重性”指标的工作数量的过程。这些碰撞证实了这样一种观点,即对工作条件的特殊评估不适合就劳动过程的强度对工作条件进行真正的评估,因为它们误导了国家、所有者和雇员。在目前的条件下,在工作条件特别评估程序中,评估劳动过程强度的应用方法已经过时,而且没有信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bezopasnost'' Truda v Promyshlennosti
Bezopasnost'' Truda v Promyshlennosti Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
110
期刊最新文献
Analytical Methodology for Substantiating the Optimal Frequency of Scheduled Inspections of the Fire-fighting Condition of Industrial and Warehouse Buildings Increasing Geodynamic Safety by Managing Induced Seismicity During the Development of Solid Mineral Deposits Critique and Improvement of the Regulatory Framework on the Calculation of Structures for Seismic Impacts On the Problem of the Large Tires Safe Operation Improving the Labor Safety of Mining Dump Truck Drivers by Reducing the Risk of Failure of the Functional Units of the Traction Electric Drive under Operating Conditions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1