Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1238065
P. Waterson, R. Dingwall
This editorial summarizes the work of the research programme ‘Health and Safety in a Changing World’, commissioned by IOSH and carried out between 2010 and 2015 by teams from the Institute of Occupational Medicine, Loughborough University, Cranfield University and the Universities of Nottingham (Leka et al., this issue), Reading and Portsmouth. In what follows, we first outline the background to the research programme followed by a brief description of the six papers in the special issue. A final section covers information about how to access the full research reports from the research programme, as well as details of a book based on the programme which will be published in January 2017.
这篇社论总结了“不断变化的世界中的健康与安全”研究项目的工作，该项目由IOSH委托，由拉夫堡大学、克兰菲尔德大学和诺丁汉大学(Leka等人，本期)、雷丁大学和朴茨茅斯大学的职业医学研究所(Institute of Occupational Medicine)的团队在2010年至2015年间开展。在接下来的内容中，我们首先概述了研究计划的背景，然后简要介绍了特刊中的六篇论文。最后一部分涵盖了如何访问研究计划的完整研究报告的信息，以及将于2017年1月出版的基于该计划的书籍的详细信息。
{"title":"Health and safety in a changing world","authors":"P. Waterson, R. Dingwall","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1238065","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1238065","url":null,"abstract":"This editorial summarizes the work of the research programme ‘Health and Safety in a Changing World’, commissioned by IOSH and carried out between 2010 and 2015 by teams from the Institute of Occupational Medicine, Loughborough University, Cranfield University and the Universities of Nottingham (Leka et al., this issue), Reading and Portsmouth. In what follows, we first outline the background to the research programme followed by a brief description of the six papers in the special issue. A final section covers information about how to access the full research reports from the research programme, as well as details of a book based on the programme which will be published in January 2017.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"21 1","pages":"1 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1238065","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1210424
C. Pilbeam, Noeleen Doherty, Ross Davidson, D. Denyer
Abstract A wide range of different safety practices exist. However, they have been developed for production-oriented high-hazard environments. We know relatively little about safety practices in low-hazard service sector environments where most people in the U.K work and which differ from production-oriented industries in their organization, working practices and hazards. We conducted 143 semi-structured interviews in 10 stores of four leading U.K retailers and an office and two warehouses of a global logistics company. These revealed 32 categories of safety practices in these service organizations which we aligned to those indicated in the OHSAS 18001 framework to allow comparison across industries. There were few practices that were not common to all service environments. Moreover, these closely resembled safety practices conducted in production-oriented high-hazard environments. We explain this homogeneity by institutional isomorphism, which encourages conformity through coercive, normative and mimetic pressures arising respectively from legal and regulatory requirements, professional standards and training, and lack of resources and staff turnover. We draw attention to the contingent relationship between hazards and appropriate safety practices and conclude that these pressures encourage organizations to borrow practices inappropriately and to accumulate layers of practices to ensure safe working needlessly increasing organizational costs. Opportunities for further research are discussed.
{"title":"Effect of isomorphic forces on safety practices in service organizations: are there dangers to homogeneity?","authors":"C. Pilbeam, Noeleen Doherty, Ross Davidson, D. Denyer","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1210424","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1210424","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A wide range of different safety practices exist. However, they have been developed for production-oriented high-hazard environments. We know relatively little about safety practices in low-hazard service sector environments where most people in the U.K work and which differ from production-oriented industries in their organization, working practices and hazards. We conducted 143 semi-structured interviews in 10 stores of four leading U.K retailers and an office and two warehouses of a global logistics company. These revealed 32 categories of safety practices in these service organizations which we aligned to those indicated in the OHSAS 18001 framework to allow comparison across industries. There were few practices that were not common to all service environments. Moreover, these closely resembled safety practices conducted in production-oriented high-hazard environments. We explain this homogeneity by institutional isomorphism, which encourages conformity through coercive, normative and mimetic pressures arising respectively from legal and regulatory requirements, professional standards and training, and lack of resources and staff turnover. We draw attention to the contingent relationship between hazards and appropriate safety practices and conclude that these pressures encourage organizations to borrow practices inappropriately and to accumulate layers of practices to ensure safe working needlessly increasing organizational costs. Opportunities for further research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"50 - 64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1210424","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1231868
P. Almond, Mike Esbester
Abstract ‘Health and safety’ currently has an image problem in the UK. This article explores the origins of these current negative perceptions, framed around the concept of legitimacy – the degree to which a policy project of this sort is viewed as right, proper, and appropriate. The article considers and evaluates key moments in the growth and decline of social consensus around health and safety since 1960, including the Robens Committee and subsequent Health and Safety at Work Act, the decline of trade unionism, the extension of health and safety beyond the workplace, and the rise of the safety profession. It concludes that change has been much more subtle and less uniform than general perceptions might suggest, and makes recommendations for how public engagement with occupational health and safety might be restructured.
{"title":"The changing legitimacy of health and safety, 1960–2015: understanding the past, preparing for the future","authors":"P. Almond, Mike Esbester","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1231868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231868","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract ‘Health and safety’ currently has an image problem in the UK. This article explores the origins of these current negative perceptions, framed around the concept of legitimacy – the degree to which a policy project of this sort is viewed as right, proper, and appropriate. The article considers and evaluates key moments in the growth and decline of social consensus around health and safety since 1960, including the Robens Committee and subsequent Health and Safety at Work Act, the decline of trade unionism, the extension of health and safety beyond the workplace, and the rise of the safety profession. It concludes that change has been much more subtle and less uniform than general perceptions might suggest, and makes recommendations for how public engagement with occupational health and safety might be restructured.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"81 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231868","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822742","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1239357
James Pinder, A. Gibb, A. Dainty, Wendy Jones, M. Fray, R. Hartley, A. Cheyne, A. Finneran, J. Glover, R. Haslam, J. Morgan, P. Waterson, Elaine Gosling, P. Bust, S. Pink
Abstract Despite the prevalence of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro organisations, comparatively little is known about how such organisations approach occupational safety and health (OSH). Research has tended to present a negative picture of OSH practices in smaller organisations. This paper discusses some of the challenges to researching OSH in SMEs and micro organisations and how these challenges can be overcome. It draws lessons and experiences from a qualitative study involving 149 structured interviews, nine short-term ethnographies and 21 semi-structured interviews with owners and employees in SMEs and micro organisations from a broad cross-section of industry sectors in the UK, including construction, retail, healthcare, logistics and agriculture. Data from the study suggest that the established boundaries between micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are less meaningful in an OSH context – OSH practices are influenced more by the culture of the organisation, the type of work being undertaken and the sector that an organisation operates in. OSH practices in SMEs and micro organisations tend to reflect more informal characteristics of such organisations, with more emphasis (than many larger organisations) on tacit knowledge, learning by doing and improvisation. Such practices should not necessarily be assumed to be unsafe or incompatible with formalised OSH.
{"title":"Occupational safety and health and smaller organisations: research challenges and opportunities","authors":"James Pinder, A. Gibb, A. Dainty, Wendy Jones, M. Fray, R. Hartley, A. Cheyne, A. Finneran, J. Glover, R. Haslam, J. Morgan, P. Waterson, Elaine Gosling, P. Bust, S. Pink","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1239357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1239357","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Despite the prevalence of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and micro organisations, comparatively little is known about how such organisations approach occupational safety and health (OSH). Research has tended to present a negative picture of OSH practices in smaller organisations. This paper discusses some of the challenges to researching OSH in SMEs and micro organisations and how these challenges can be overcome. It draws lessons and experiences from a qualitative study involving 149 structured interviews, nine short-term ethnographies and 21 semi-structured interviews with owners and employees in SMEs and micro organisations from a broad cross-section of industry sectors in the UK, including construction, retail, healthcare, logistics and agriculture. Data from the study suggest that the established boundaries between micro, small and medium-sized enterprises are less meaningful in an OSH context – OSH practices are influenced more by the culture of the organisation, the type of work being undertaken and the sector that an organisation operates in. OSH practices in SMEs and micro organisations tend to reflect more informal characteristics of such organisations, with more emphasis (than many larger organisations) on tacit knowledge, learning by doing and improvisation. Such practices should not necessarily be assumed to be unsafe or incompatible with formalised OSH.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"34 - 49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1239357","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1231864
J. Crawford, Alice Davis, G. Walker, H. Cowie, P. Ritchie
Abstract The roots of knowledge transfer (KT) can be traced back to the 1960s and the development of conceptual frameworks to improve the use of research from theory into practice. Its relevance to occupational safety and health (OSH) is clear in that often practitioners are aiming to transfer knowledge to employees to reduce health or safety risks in the working environment. This paper examines methodologies and tools that can be used for KT in the organizational context and identified those that were most relevant in OSH. The methodology development process is described within the paper which used the Diffusion of Innovations theory as a framework to describe the type of knowledge being transferred, the persuasion route used, the decision of whether new knowledge was adopted, how the KT was implemented and how success or failure of an intervention could be assessed. Using this framework structured interviews and shorter employee surveys were developed to evaluate KT in an organizational setting after an OSH intervention. In addition, further questions were developed using KT tools to describe the properties of the knowledge transferred, the level of media richness and its appropriateness in a given context and examination of the methods used within a sender receiver framework. The methodology development process allowed the production of a question set to enable the research team to interview and survey stakeholders involved in OSH interventions in the workplace.
{"title":"Evaluation of knowledge transfer for occupational safety and health in an organizational context: development of an evaluation framework","authors":"J. Crawford, Alice Davis, G. Walker, H. Cowie, P. Ritchie","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1231864","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231864","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The roots of knowledge transfer (KT) can be traced back to the 1960s and the development of conceptual frameworks to improve the use of research from theory into practice. Its relevance to occupational safety and health (OSH) is clear in that often practitioners are aiming to transfer knowledge to employees to reduce health or safety risks in the working environment. This paper examines methodologies and tools that can be used for KT in the organizational context and identified those that were most relevant in OSH. The methodology development process is described within the paper which used the Diffusion of Innovations theory as a framework to describe the type of knowledge being transferred, the persuasion route used, the decision of whether new knowledge was adopted, how the KT was implemented and how success or failure of an intervention could be assessed. Using this framework structured interviews and shorter employee surveys were developed to evaluate KT in an organizational setting after an OSH intervention. In addition, further questions were developed using KT tools to describe the properties of the knowledge transferred, the level of media richness and its appropriateness in a given context and examination of the methods used within a sender receiver framework. The methodology development process allowed the production of a question set to enable the research team to interview and survey stakeholders involved in OSH interventions in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"14 1","pages":"21 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231864","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 10.1080/14773996.2016.1231871
S. Leka, Aditya Jain, G. Zwetsloot, N. Andreou, D. Hollis
Abstract Understanding the changing landscape of occupational safety and health (OSH) regulation and standards and its implications are of central importance for ensuring that OSH outcomes are not compromised and the needs of different types of organizations are met. It is also important for developing appropriate strategies to anticipate and deal with future challenges for OSH policy-making. This paper draws on findings from two qualitative studies with key OSH stakeholders in the UK that were conducted as part of a research programme funded the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health. The aim of the first study was to elicit the views of key stakeholders on changes in the current OSH landscape so as to understand the nature and implications of these changes. The second study explored stakeholder perspectives on how to secure the optimal OSH landscape in the UK by addressing key future challenges for OSH policy-making.
{"title":"Future challenges of occupational safety and health policy-making in the UK","authors":"S. Leka, Aditya Jain, G. Zwetsloot, N. Andreou, D. Hollis","doi":"10.1080/14773996.2016.1231871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231871","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Understanding the changing landscape of occupational safety and health (OSH) regulation and standards and its implications are of central importance for ensuring that OSH outcomes are not compromised and the needs of different types of organizations are met. It is also important for developing appropriate strategies to anticipate and deal with future challenges for OSH policy-making. This paper draws on findings from two qualitative studies with key OSH stakeholders in the UK that were conducted as part of a research programme funded the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health. The aim of the first study was to elicit the views of key stakeholders on changes in the current OSH landscape so as to understand the nature and implications of these changes. The second study explored stakeholder perspectives on how to secure the optimal OSH landscape in the UK by addressing key future challenges for OSH policy-making.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"116 1","pages":"65 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14773996.2016.1231871","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59822788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14774003.2015.11667812
A. Kosny, Bianca Brijnath, Nabita Singh, Amy R. Allen, A. Collie, R. Ruseckaite, D. Mazza, Dranzcog Grad
Abstract Workers’ compensation authorities expect that various stakeholders — insurers, employers, injured workers and healthcare providers — work together to help return an injured worker to early, safe and sustainable employment. To date, research examining interactions between employers and healthcare providers, in the context of return to work, is limited. Based on data gathered via qualitative, in-depth interviews with employers, our paper addresses this gap. We examine the perspectives of a group of employers from Melbourne, Australia who have had experience with return to work and, specifically, their interactions with general practitioners during this process. Our findings indicate that while employers view general practitioners as important decision-makers in the return-to-work process, they often have difficulty making contact with general practitioners and working collaboratively on a return-to-work plan. They feel that general practitioners’ lack of engagement in the return-to-work process is due to the administrative complexity of the workers’ compensation system, limited remuneration and lack of knowledge of the workplace. Employers’ feelings of exclusion, along with a view that some injured workers will ‘cheat the system’, make some employers suspicious of the doctor-patient relationship, making collaboration more difficult. Including employers in an employee’s return to work can signify that they have influence over processes that can profoundly affect their workplaces and provide decision-makers with important information about available duties and workplace organisation. Streamlined administrative processes, higher remuneration for general practitioners and the engagement of return-to-work coordinators can also facilitate the return-to-work process.
{"title":"Uncomfortable Bedfellows: Employer Perspectives on General Practitioners’ Role in the Return-to-Work Process","authors":"A. Kosny, Bianca Brijnath, Nabita Singh, Amy R. Allen, A. Collie, R. Ruseckaite, D. Mazza, Dranzcog Grad","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667812","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Workers’ compensation authorities expect that various stakeholders — insurers, employers, injured workers and healthcare providers — work together to help return an injured worker to early, safe and sustainable employment. To date, research examining interactions between employers and healthcare providers, in the context of return to work, is limited. Based on data gathered via qualitative, in-depth interviews with employers, our paper addresses this gap. We examine the perspectives of a group of employers from Melbourne, Australia who have had experience with return to work and, specifically, their interactions with general practitioners during this process. Our findings indicate that while employers view general practitioners as important decision-makers in the return-to-work process, they often have difficulty making contact with general practitioners and working collaboratively on a return-to-work plan. They feel that general practitioners’ lack of engagement in the return-to-work process is due to the administrative complexity of the workers’ compensation system, limited remuneration and lack of knowledge of the workplace. Employers’ feelings of exclusion, along with a view that some injured workers will ‘cheat the system’, make some employers suspicious of the doctor-patient relationship, making collaboration more difficult. Including employers in an employee’s return to work can signify that they have influence over processes that can profoundly affect their workplaces and provide decision-makers with important information about available duties and workplace organisation. Streamlined administrative processes, higher remuneration for general practitioners and the engagement of return-to-work coordinators can also facilitate the return-to-work process.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"13 1","pages":"65 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667812","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59825392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815
A. Bamford
Abstract This paper describes how work arrangements, particularly subcontracting and temporary employment, are associated with factors related to pesticide exposure and to worker perceptions of pesticide exposure in two countries with similar but not identical regulatory frameworks: Australia and the United Kingdom. Data are drawn from 67 semi-structured interviews with horticultural fieldworkers, employers, labour providers, and industry, union and government representatives. The regulatory frameworks were compared and the real, or perceived, impacts of regulatory provisions on occupational safety and health outcomes were examined. For both countries, a number of conclusions are drawn. Subcontracting and temporary work arrangements appeared to affect occupational safety and health, including pesticide exposures. Factors explaining this include economic pressures, worker mobility and the fracturing of tasks into separate contractual units that contributed to hazardous forms of work disorganisation, and regulatory failure. Financial pressure was accentuated by the subletting of work under a subcontracting system; employment and income insecurity, as well as intense competition for work, contributed to a range of hazardous practices among labour subcontractors, including accepting hazardous tasks. The critical factor seemed to be that the work was temporary and itinerant. Reactive and infrequent government inspection exacerbates the insidious health risks associated with exposure. The findings raise questions about the extent to which the vulnerability that comes from being foreign-born can be disassociated from vulnerability arising from the work arrangement.
{"title":"The Influence of Work Arrangements on Hazardous Exposures: A Study of Australian and United Kingdom Horticulture","authors":"A. Bamford","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper describes how work arrangements, particularly subcontracting and temporary employment, are associated with factors related to pesticide exposure and to worker perceptions of pesticide exposure in two countries with similar but not identical regulatory frameworks: Australia and the United Kingdom. Data are drawn from 67 semi-structured interviews with horticultural fieldworkers, employers, labour providers, and industry, union and government representatives. The regulatory frameworks were compared and the real, or perceived, impacts of regulatory provisions on occupational safety and health outcomes were examined. For both countries, a number of conclusions are drawn. Subcontracting and temporary work arrangements appeared to affect occupational safety and health, including pesticide exposures. Factors explaining this include economic pressures, worker mobility and the fracturing of tasks into separate contractual units that contributed to hazardous forms of work disorganisation, and regulatory failure. Financial pressure was accentuated by the subletting of work under a subcontracting system; employment and income insecurity, as well as intense competition for work, contributed to a range of hazardous practices among labour subcontractors, including accepting hazardous tasks. The critical factor seemed to be that the work was temporary and itinerant. Reactive and infrequent government inspection exacerbates the insidious health risks associated with exposure. The findings raise questions about the extent to which the vulnerability that comes from being foreign-born can be disassociated from vulnerability arising from the work arrangement.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"13 1","pages":"23 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59825470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14774003.2015.11667818
R. Cox
Abstract This paper reports on a study of the role granted to unions in the implementation of psychological harassment legislation in Quebec. Quebec law incorporates psychological harassment legislation into all collective agreements, making grievance arbitration the sole avenue of recourse for unionised workers experiencing harassment at work. This contrasts with the dedicated complaint process set up for non-unionised workers at the Labour Standards Commission. The paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on interviews with union representatives responsible for recourse with respect to psychological harassment. Findings suggest that the strengths and limitations of union representation of workers who believe they are being harassed vary significantly, depending on the labour relations context in each workplace. In workplaces where labour relations were generally good, union representatives were often able to play a significant role in processing complaints of psychological harassment. They brought legitimacy and meaning to the ban on psychological harassment in the workplace. However, in workplaces where unions were facing deteriorating psychosocial work environments, labour relations were often acrimonious. In these workplaces, the psychological harassment provisions raised expectations on the part of union members, while, at the same time, failing to provide any meaningful leverage to assist the union in resolving complaints effectively. The paper concludes that, ironically, where unionised workers are probably most in need of protection from harassment, they are least likely to have access to effective union representation. The choice to house psychological harassment provisions in Québec’s Labour Standards Act, and then to ‘piggy back’ implementation on labour relations in unionised workplaces also means that the responsibility for prevention, as well as individual recourse, falls to the parties to the collective agreement. In terms of legislative reform, the adoption of a risk management framework for harassment at work would attract crucial external support for prevention, inspection and intervention on behalf of harassed workers in the workplaces where workers are most at risk of psychological harassment. Government policy to this effect would offer a muchneeded legislative push towards a more collective, constructive and equitable approach to the prevention of psychological harassment.
{"title":"Quebec Unions’ Role with Respect to Complaints of Psychological Harassment in the Workplace: The Peril and Promise of Implementing Individual Rights Through Collective Labour Relations","authors":"R. Cox","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667818","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667818","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reports on a study of the role granted to unions in the implementation of psychological harassment legislation in Quebec. Quebec law incorporates psychological harassment legislation into all collective agreements, making grievance arbitration the sole avenue of recourse for unionised workers experiencing harassment at work. This contrasts with the dedicated complaint process set up for non-unionised workers at the Labour Standards Commission. The paper presents the results of a qualitative study based on interviews with union representatives responsible for recourse with respect to psychological harassment. Findings suggest that the strengths and limitations of union representation of workers who believe they are being harassed vary significantly, depending on the labour relations context in each workplace. In workplaces where labour relations were generally good, union representatives were often able to play a significant role in processing complaints of psychological harassment. They brought legitimacy and meaning to the ban on psychological harassment in the workplace. However, in workplaces where unions were facing deteriorating psychosocial work environments, labour relations were often acrimonious. In these workplaces, the psychological harassment provisions raised expectations on the part of union members, while, at the same time, failing to provide any meaningful leverage to assist the union in resolving complaints effectively. The paper concludes that, ironically, where unionised workers are probably most in need of protection from harassment, they are least likely to have access to effective union representation. The choice to house psychological harassment provisions in Québec’s Labour Standards Act, and then to ‘piggy back’ implementation on labour relations in unionised workplaces also means that the responsibility for prevention, as well as individual recourse, falls to the parties to the collective agreement. In terms of legislative reform, the adoption of a risk management framework for harassment at work would attract crucial external support for prevention, inspection and intervention on behalf of harassed workers in the workplaces where workers are most at risk of psychological harassment. Government policy to this effect would offer a muchneeded legislative push towards a more collective, constructive and equitable approach to the prevention of psychological harassment.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"13 1","pages":"69 - 86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667818","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59825652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-01-01DOI: 10.1080/14774003.2015.11667808
Noora Nenonen, Paivi Hamalainen, Jouko Heikkila, T. Reiman, Sari Tappura
Abstract A manager’s active role is generally considered to be essential for successfully managing and improving safety. For example, managers are in the position to make safety-related decisions. To be able to make decisions, managers need to have a sufficient understanding of safety-related issues, such as the economic aspects of safety, the significance of which has recently increased. In order to support managers’ safety-related responsibilities, it is important to understand their perceptions of safety. This paper discusses how corporate managers value safety and perceive the role of the economic aspects and evaluations of safety. Moreover, corporate managers’ views on safety are discussed in relation to different economic situations. Twenty-three management representatives from five large-scale industrial Finnish companies were interviewed. The interviewed managers saw safety as an essential part of company operations and they mentioned many ways that business and economic factors affected safety. Nevertheless, they approached safety largely from the traditional viewpoint of the reactive measurement of accidents and costs, and as an ethical principle, instead of seeing safety as part of doing business. One can question whether safety is included sufficiently in decision-making if it is only approached as a value in itself, and whether the situation would be different if managers had more and better tools to model the economic aspects of safety. Economic evaluations could be useful, particularly in times of austerity when resources are scarce. At the same time, the benefits and limitations of the tools for modelling economic aspects of safety need to be considered.
{"title":"Corporate Managers’ Perceptions of Safety and its Value: An Interview Study of Five Internationally Operating Finnish Companies","authors":"Noora Nenonen, Paivi Hamalainen, Jouko Heikkila, T. Reiman, Sari Tappura","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667808","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A manager’s active role is generally considered to be essential for successfully managing and improving safety. For example, managers are in the position to make safety-related decisions. To be able to make decisions, managers need to have a sufficient understanding of safety-related issues, such as the economic aspects of safety, the significance of which has recently increased. In order to support managers’ safety-related responsibilities, it is important to understand their perceptions of safety. This paper discusses how corporate managers value safety and perceive the role of the economic aspects and evaluations of safety. Moreover, corporate managers’ views on safety are discussed in relation to different economic situations. Twenty-three management representatives from five large-scale industrial Finnish companies were interviewed. The interviewed managers saw safety as an essential part of company operations and they mentioned many ways that business and economic factors affected safety. Nevertheless, they approached safety largely from the traditional viewpoint of the reactive measurement of accidents and costs, and as an ethical principle, instead of seeing safety as part of doing business. One can question whether safety is included sufficiently in decision-making if it is only approached as a value in itself, and whether the situation would be different if managers had more and better tools to model the economic aspects of safety. Economic evaluations could be useful, particularly in times of austerity when resources are scarce. At the same time, the benefits and limitations of the tools for modelling economic aspects of safety need to be considered.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"13 1","pages":"15 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667808","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59825285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：