TRADE UNION NEWS

February 2000

The recent meeting of union health and safety specialists held at the TUC considered, amongst other matters, the HSC Discussion Document on Employee Consultation and Involvement in Health and Safety.

The view of the union specialists being that the main issue was how to persuade employers and government to accept the proposals in the Discussion Document. On policy, it was clarified that the TUC believed that representatives of employee safety should have the same rights as safety representatives under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 and that workers should chose whether to have them rather than employers as currently is the position under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. It being felt that one of the main arguments to use in persuading employers was that roving safety representatives were the best response to a changing labour market (eg small firms, peripatetic workforces) and have worked well in those areas where such conditions have prevailed for years (eg performing arts).

Other matters discussed by the union specialists included:

• A response to the HSE consultation document Reducing Risks, Protecting People which stressed that the HSE document dismissed the problem of uncertainty, where there is not enough evidence to assess risk, too easily.

• The commissioning of a report concerning the results of a TUC survey of union health and safety services. The report will attempt to look across the provisions of different unions, although it was felt that the fact that union health and safety structures are so dependant on the unique structures of each union that it was unlikely that lessons could be learned across unions. The final report will be posted on the web and sent to health and safety opinion-formers and regulators, trade union studies centres and unions.

• Agreement that the biennial TUC survey of safety representatives will be repeated in 2000. The TUC will be inviting the Labour Research Department to tender for the survey process.

According to the AEEU, a recent US study reveals that many American employers are keeping a close watch over their personnel. The study by an American employers’ association found that 67% of US companies have their employees under surveillance at work. Methods used to achieve this include the use of numbered magnetic keys, which indicate the comings and goings of employees, and the monitoring of their electronic mail. In addition, 39% of the employers participating in the survey keep track of all telephone numbers which have been called, as well as the duration of each conversation, and 16% observe the behaviour of their personnel through video recordings. A large majority of these firms claim that their employees are aware of this surveillance. The additional stress factors generated by this process have yet to be calculated!

The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICTFU) is 50 years old. It speaks for 124 million workers and 213 national trade union centres in 143 countries. At its core is a belief in independent, democratic trade unionism. Former AEEU president Bill Jordan has been ICFTU General Secretary since 1995.

One of the key areas in which ICFTU are engaged involves the fight against child labour. Over 250 million children are at work. Every day these children are being exploited for profit. In 1998 the ICFTU adopted its Child Labour Charter. At the heart of the Charter was a determination that those who gain from child labour must be stopped and required to help undo the damage they have done. They must help pay for the rehabilitation and education of child workers. The Charter was instrumental in the adoption this year of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention on Child Labour.

Much has since been done to eradicate child labour, including the development of trade marks such as the RUGMARK certifying child labour free production. The specific target of the Charter is to remove child labour as a factor in the production of internationally-traded goods by the year 2000.

Governments world-wide are investing heavily in Export Processing Zones and touting them as sources of cheap, mainly young female labour where unions are suppressed. Many multinationals, keen to escape high wages, stricter laws and stronger unions in the industrialised world, have been only too happy to take advantage. At least 15 million children are involved in export production, working in sectors such as mining, garments and textiles, shoe production, agriculture, carpet-making, footballs and the production of surgical instruments. Even forced labour, the contemporary form of slavery, exists in at least 20 countries around the world and is often linked to major export sectors. The ICFTU believes that the world cannot tolerate an economic system that depends upon repression for profit, that exploits children and young women, and that makes slavery a sound business option. It is no longer possible to separate trade policy from workers’ rights, development, environment and gender.

These were the issues behind the recent protests at the third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) held in Seattle. The WTO will only regain public confidence if it agrees on international action to shape globalisation to take account of development goals and social and environmental issues, including fundamental workers’ rights. Otherwise it will remain to be perceived as a mere puppet in the hands of the multinational companies for whom Mammon has long become the sole god.

UNISON have updated four of their health and safety publications. Two revised guides are for safety representatives dealing with important workplace issues focussing around RSI and dermatitis, there is a leaflet for union members on stress and a recruitment leaflet which utilises health and safety as an issue to persuade employees who are non-members to join.

The dermatitis guidance covers causes, who may be affected, avoidance and the legal position under COSHH etc. The need to report cases under RIDDOR is also dealt with as is the means of obtaining compensation and benefits for sufferers. The avoidance section utilises the hierarchy of control approach and those highlighted as being most at risk include: cleaning and laundry staff, catering staff, care workers, grounds maintenance staff, nursing staff, office workers, laboratory technicians and technical workers, craft and maintenance staff and drivers.

The RSI guide covers the meaning of RSI, its causes, who is affected and how it can be prevented. A simple checklist is also included in order to assist safety representatives in identifying employees who might be at risk.

Back

Mike Everley