Finding out what works for workers by asking workers
TUC submission to the HSC
HSC/E strategic research outlook 2002
Draft for comment
This is the TUC’s response to the draft HSC/E strategic research outlook for 2002, which is on the HSE website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/noframes/outlook.htm
Executive summary
- The TUC supports the attempt to focus on research that supports the priorities of the Health and Safety Commission, and that looks at what works, rather than abstract research.
- We want to see a greater focus on asking workers for their experiences, for example by using techniques such as body mapping. When it comes to health and safety at work, no one is as expert as the workers.
- Evidence suggests that involving safety reps leads to huge reductions in injury rates, and the HSE should be testing this, especially in sectors like construction where employers are reluctant to accept that involvement. HSE should also explore the effect on injuries and illness rates of partnership and other management styles.
- HSE should do more to analyse rehabilitation, which will be crucial to getting people back to work and meeting the HSC target of a 30% reduction in absence due to occupational illness and injury.
- HSE should do more to study the health and safety experiences of women at work.
Workers’ experiences
We would want to see a principle established that the research that HSE commissions/funds based on workers' actual experiences in the workplace, rather than the perceived effects that others identify. This would suggest, for instance, that research into the toxicity of a chemical in the workplace would include workers' own reporting of their health, as well as other people's views. Our experience of body-mapping as a technique for research suggests that workers' perceptions are more realistic than so-called objective measurements.
Safety rep involvement and management styles
We believe that the HSE should commission far more research into the effectiveness of safety reps, for instance updating the Reilly, Paci, Holl research into accident rates, and the work (as yet unpublished) by HSA/HSENI on the effect of safety reps on construction sites (which goes wider than injury rates). The Reilly, Paci, Holl research suggested that the involvement of safety reps was a very effective way to reduce accident rates.
Other similar areas which need research are whether different management styles impact on health and safety.
Specific areas where more research would be useful include:
- construction , compare injury/illness rates on sites with and without safety reps, and examine the impact on safety of employment patterns (hire and fire) and the lack of respect for the workforce;
- health services , we should look at the effectiveness of management of risks; and the effectiveness of various patterns of relationships with safety reps (from partnership through compliance to hostility);
- slips and trips , we should look at the effectiveness of partnerships between employers and unions on rates (eg the substantial reductions in some parts of the food industry); and
- major hazards , we should look at the impact of dictatorial management styles (eg in rail but also in construction) on workforce behaviour and injury rates;
What works
On enforcement, we believe that as well as the effect of HSE enforcement activity, there is a need to study other forms of enforcement such as insurance premiums . It would also be useful to research into the possible effectiveness of enforcement on issues like stress.
In addition, it would be useful to do more to compare examples of good practice with poor performance to understand what causes the difference, eg in construction, why does engineering construction have a different accident rate from civil contracts?
Specific areas of research work
We believe that in the field of RSI, a summary of the known evidence on prevention and management (similar to the FOM/Blue Circle guidance produced last year) would be useful, as long as it was developed in a tripartite fashion.
Other areas that need addressing are:
- construction , the impact of the Safety Summit action plans, and how to tackle language issues;
- agriculture , the home/workplace boundary on farms that leads to so many children engaged in/proximate to work activities; and
- health services , patients’ health and safety (a key target in SH2), and the impact of internal occupational health service arrangements on OH provision for patients.
Finally
There seems to be very little about rehabilitation and sickness absence management - crucial to the 30% sickness absence target; and there is very little looking at women’s health and safety, which should be an element of virtually all the strands in the draft strategy. These are both areas where the lack of research is one of the obstacles to developing policies.
Stay Updated
Want to hear about our latest news and blogs?
Sign up now to get it straight to your inbox