Unionistation improves safety

[madd0ct0r]

http://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-8382-f0.cfm

There is a wealth of evidence that has been produced over the past 10 years, both in the UK and abroad. In 1995 a group of researchers analysed the relationship between worker representation and industrial injuries in British Manufacturing. It found that those employers who had trade union health and safety committees had half the injury rate of those employers who managed safety without unions or joint arrangements 1. Several other analysis of the same figures have all concluded that the arrangements that lead to the highest injury rates are where management deals with Occupational Health and Safety without consultation 2. In 2004 a further analysis of the data confirmed that "the general conclusion that health and safety should not be left to management should be supported." 3

In 2007 the same authors once again found lower injury rates in workplaces with trade union representation the effects were deemed to be significant, by contrast the effect of management alone deciding on health and safety was not significant. 4

A study of 1998 figures also confirmed that "unions gravitate towards accident prone workplaces and react by reducing injury rates". This study showed that where there is a union presence the workplace injury rate is 24% lower than where there is no union presence. 5

More recently a study of manual workers published in 2008 confirmed that workers in unionised workplaces were less likely to have a fatal injury. 6

But it is not only injuries that trade unions help reduce. It is also ill-health. Another study in 2000 found that "The proportion of employees who are trade union members has a positive and significant association on both injury and illness rates." It went on to say that "the arrangements associated with trade unions...lower the odds of injury and illness when compared with arrangements that merely inform employees of OHS issues". 7

In 2003 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) ran a number of pilots where trade union appointed "Worker Safety Advisors" went in to non-unionised organisations. The report into the pilot showed that over 75% of employers said they had made changes as a result and almost 70% of workers had seen an increase in the awareness of health & safety. 8

In January 2007 the DTI (now BIS) published a report which concluded that safety reps at 2004 prices save society between £181m and £578m each year as a result of lost time reduction from occupational injuries and work-related illnesses of between 286,000 and 616,000 days. 9

There is also a lot of evidence from outside the UK. In Ireland a group of academics looked at the construction industry in both Northern Ireland and the Irish republic. It concluded. "the strongest relationship with safety compliance is the presence of a safety representative" 10

Throughout Europe there is evidence of the effect that unions can have, which is why the European Commission introduced a directive which says that all EU countries must introduce regulations to ensure that employers consult on health and safety.

In France for instance a 2005 survey found that workers with a health and safety committee were twice as likely to have been given training in health and safety in the previous 12 months, or to have received written safety instructions. They were also more likely to be provided with protective equipment. 11

In Canada a study by the Canadian Ministries of Labor found that union supported health and safety committees have "a significant impact on reducing injury rates",12 while a report by the Ontario Workplace Health and Safety Agency found "78-79% of unionised workplaces reported high compliance with health and safety legislation with only 54-61% of non-unionised workplaces reporting such compliance." 13

In the USA, a 1991 study found that unions dramatically increased enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the manufacturing sector. A more recent study in New Jersey found that the greater the level of worker involvement in safety committees the fewer the injuries and illnesses reported. 14

Safety Representatives have also been shown to have a major effect in changing the safety culture in Australia,15 and unionised workplaces in Australian are three times more likely to have a Safety Committee, and twice as likely to have undergone a management safety audit in the previous year than non-unionised workplaces.

However it is not only academic researchers who have said that the union effect works.

The Health and Safety Executive's 2009 strategy stated "There is strong evidence that unionised workplaces and those with health and safety representatives are safer and healthier as a result.

In 1995, the World Bank said "Trade unions can play an important role in enforcing health and safety standards. Individual workers may find it too costly to obtain information on health and safety risks on their own, and they usually want to avoid antagonizing their employers by insisting that standards be respected."
So how does this happen?

One of the reasons unions make such a difference is that they ensure that their safety representatives are trained. In 1997, a survey for the HSE into the chemical regulations (COSHH) 16 found that Safety representatives were far more knowledgeable than their managers. 90% of safety representatives were aware of the main principles of the main chemical safety regulations. Over a third of managers had not even heard of the regulations. The survey also found that over 80% of safety representatives had received training in health and safety in the last two years, compared to 44% of managers.

Every year the TUC trains around 10,000 safety representatives, and many more are trained through their unions. In those rare occasions where there are non-union safety representatives, they get their training from management, or management appointed consultants, so are less able to challenge what management tell them.

Also safety representatives know the workplace far better than management as they are aware of what really goes on. They also act as a channel for individual workers to raise their concerns. A HSE research paper concluded that "Health and safety committee representatives provide a diverse channel for reporting events and hazards." It added "union backing, even if it is just knowledge that additional support is available if required, is invaluable" 17

Unions often realise the risks long before management. Many risks were first identified by unions, sometimes after management ignored or hid early warnings. It was unions that highlighted the dangers of asbestos and campaigned for a ban many years before the government introduced one. If action had been taken then, it could have prevented many of the 3,000 annual deaths that are caused by asbestos. Unions also unearthed the risks posed by many hazardous chemicals such as carbon disulphide and vinyl chloride monomer. Unions were the first to raise major concerns over levels of violence in the workplace, and RSI, and the effects of passive smoking. When unions first raised the issue of stress, employers and the media argued it was nonsense. It is now recognised that workplace stress effects around half a million people. Even today it is unions and groups of safety representatives that are highlighting the potential risks within the semi-conductor industry, or from nano-technology.

It is also a simple fact that consultation with the workforce can have a considerable effect in changing the safety culture in a workplace. A research paper by the Health and Safety Laboratory 18 gives a number of case studies that showed that involving the workforce lead to real benefits. In one case there was a drop in accidents from 1.2 to 0.1 per 100,000 work hours.

Where staff have safety representatives, and safety committees they know that they have a voice. That makes them more willing to raise issues. Unions also help make their members more aware of safety issues in the workplace.

However involving workers directly, without union representation is far less likely to be successful. Research conducted in 2010 for both ROSPA and the HSE found that where worker involvement happened in non-unionised workplaces is was more likely to follow the employer's agenda, while unionised safety representatives were more likely to be empowered to set an agenda and be challenging. 19
Making a difference

We also know that union involvement makes a real difference in the workplace. There have been a wide range of case studies that have shown the benefits of union involvement in health and safety. Here are just a few examples:

In 2006 a joint management union campaign at Devonport Royal Dockyard aimed at better communications and involvement in safety reduced accidents by 35% and increased profits by 8%

In a Somerfield distribution centre in Scotland, the union safety representatives did a survey of MusculoSkeletal Disorders. This was raised at the joint safety committee who developed an action plan that led to a 50% reduction in manual handling injuries over 2 years.

After an critical HSE inspection at Bristol City Council Parking services in 2008 the employers and management developed a plan which included giving full-time release to one of the safety representatives, reviewing risk assessments, better training, and new communication equipment. The fall in sickness absence, reduction in incidents of violence against staff and increase staff moral are estimated to have save the employer over £36,000 in the first year alone.

In the paper industry a joint union management initiative, which increased the involvement of safety representatives, led to a reduction in major and fatal injuries in the industry by a quarter over three years.

In Nestles the union was concerned over the large number of injuries caused by slips (a third of the total injuries). They worked out a joint plan with management which let to a cut in slipping injuries of 60% over three years. They then looked at manual handling injuries and reduced them by 40%. Because unions share information far more effectively than management the approach used in Nestles was used in other companies such as KP Foods Ashby and Cavaghan and Gray, with similar reductions in injury rates achieved.

Union involvement also helped reduce reportable accidents by 38% in a division of GKN through providing joint union training to managers, supervisors and safety representatives.

Following three prosecutions, Heinz, the food company, reorganised their safety management system and involved safety representatives in all aspects of risk assessment and accident investigation. Reportable accidents have decreased by over 50%.

Following a fire in a Yorkshire plant, Hickson and Welch, a chemical company, the union and management set up local safety committees, involved safety representatives in all safety procedures on site and asked the union to provide joint training. Injuries have fallen by 70% and the company and union won a European safety award.

Within Tesco, union safety representatives raised an issue of the width of one type of checkout which was causing health problems. This led to the belt being narrowed. In new stores a totally new type of checkout is used which was designed with union involvement from scratch and which helps to greatly reduce injuries among checkout staff.

more and refs on the other side of the jump.

[K. A. Pital]

Shush-shush! What can a few saved worker lives mean when profits are at stake! *laughs*

Horrendous really, when you think of it. Arguments against unions always center on money and/or corruption within unions, but human lives and human suffering - the very extreme forms thereof, like death, loss of limb, etc - fall entirely outside the scope of the issue.

[Surlethe]

Surprise! In related news, unionization results in higher, stickier wages for workers. So you have to make the tradeoff: which margin is more important, safety and wages or getting people jobs?

[K. A. Pital]

Unemployment is not a loss of life and limb, on one hand. On the other, unemployment in the Third World is extreme privation. But then, in capitalism, you always have to make crazy choices. Contradictions should drive the development of the system.

[Surlethe]

On the other hand, what are a few hundred lost limbs or a few dozen lost lives when you could put 5 million people to work? I'm not suggesting that's the case, by the way. The correct answer depends on the magnitude of the tradeoff, which is empirical.

[K. A. Pital]

On the other hand, what are a few hundred lost limbs or a few dozen lost lives when you could put 5 million people to work? I'm not suggesting that's the case, by the way. The correct answer depends on the magnitude of the tradeoff, which is empirical.

The dangerous follies of compromise, unavoidable as it is, I guess. What are a few thousand malnourished when you could feed millions of people? I'm not suggesting that lost limbs or dead workers always trump anything else, but the goals of the system have to be called into question just as the current state it is in (i.e. how many die now to provide the X jobs that would vanish if we unionize and eliminate accidents). A system which gradually eliminates the worst forms of suffering for all, completely and then tries to struggle with weaker forms of suffering is more to my liking than one which accepts extreme suffering as a necessary price for the well-being of others.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

On the other hand, what are a few hundred lost limbs or a few dozen lost lives when you could put 5 million people to work? I'm not suggesting that's the case, by the way. The correct answer depends on the magnitude of the tradeoff, which is empirical.

I am not sure if, even if this is a devil's advocate, one should go to the extent of puting all this in terms of statistics, especially considering that it is not too far fetched for these deliberations to happen at all and actually get implemented.

[Surlethe]

I am not sure if, even if this is a devil's advocate, one should go to the extent of puting all this in terms of statistics, especially considering that it is not too far fetched for these deliberations to happen at all and actually get implemented.

To the contrary: you must put a trade-off in terms of statistics if you want to have any hope of objectively evaluating the situation. It doesn't matter what your utility function's weights are, by the way --- what is important is being able to order possible outcomes to select one or several "best" options. You can't do that without understanding the magnitude of the trade-off, and you can't understand that magnitude without statistics.

By the way, such statistical deliberations are already explicitly built into the government. For example, the EPA values an individual human life at about $8 million. If legislation will save n lives, but costs more than (8 million)n, it's not worth implementing. Likewise, they are implicitly built into society. Cars kill thousands of people every year, but we implicitly accept that the great, but perhaps not life-saving, benefits of automobile transportation outweigh those deaths.

I'm not suggesting that lost limbs or dead workers always trump anything else, but the goals of the system have to be called into question just as the current state it is in (i.e. how many die now to provide the X jobs that would vanish if we unionize and eliminate accidents). A system which gradually eliminates the worst forms of suffering for all, completely and then tries to struggle with weaker forms of suffering is more to my liking than one which accepts extreme suffering as a necessary price for the well-being of others.

Compromise is unavoidable I don't disagree that the goals of the system need to be evaluated, and I'm not criticizing your preference (although I'd argue that, as a way of dealing with hazards, government oversight is overall superior to unionization). My point is merely two fold: a trade-off exists, and to approach the problem without acknowledging it is foolishness.

[madd0ct0r]

Surprise! In related news, unionization results in higher, stickier wages for workers. So you have to make the tradeoff: which margin is more important, safety and wages or getting people jobs?

Are you sure that unionisation means that less people are employed?

[aerius]

Are you sure that unionisation means that less people are employed?

In today's globalized economy, I'd say yes unless the whole world unionized at the same time. Form a union for better safety & pay and the company will move your job to a slave labour country if it can do so, or hire an illegal immigrant or visa worker to do the job for half the pay, twice the hours, and no benefits. Exaggerated a bit, but that's what companies tend to do.

[madd0ct0r]

well, the thing about hiring illegal immigrants is that it's illegal, and visa workers can be controlled by 1) visas and 2) the minimum standards set in the country.

I work in construction, so it'd kinda hard to export the jobs, but even in the developing countries there's a conflict between 'race to the bottom' and 'oh shit the masses are revolting'.

Take where i live as an example: Vietnam
Health and safety on sites here is terrible and since healthcare is expensive a broken arm stopping you from working is a serious fucking problem.

Any individual worker would never be able to demand safety gear from their boss, and it often falls to me (consultant) to enforce it. I've had workers come to me and request I enforce the use of safety glasses for example (because getting hit in the eye by high velocity cement when 6 stories up is really not fun).
In this case, I can enforce it and am willing to do so. But in cases where a 3rd party isn't present, the workers need a lever to push against the contractor's aim of bigger profits.

In the UK, that lever on sites is often the HSE, as they an shut a site down following a complaint, so if you need safety gear and don't get it, you have a stick.
But here, where the authorities are rather less consistent, what can a single guy do?

EDIT:

in more direct answer, since you didn't provide any sources, this blogpost (i know) has further links to studies showing no correlation between unionisation and economic growth:
http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.co ... s-economy/

this one shows a drag effect for canada (paywalled though): http://www.jstor.org/pss/2524312 but it's an old paper.

Possibly modern unions are more realistic about wages and working hours.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

To the contrary: you must put a trade-off in terms of statistics if you want to have any hope of objectively evaluating the situation. It doesn't matter what your utility function's weights are, by the way --- what is important is being able to order possible outcomes to select one or several "best" options. You can't do that without understanding the magnitude of the trade-off, and you can't understand that magnitude without statistics.

By the way, such statistical deliberations are already explicitly built into the government. For example, the EPA values an individual human life at about $8 million. If legislation will save n lives, but costs more than (8 million)n, it's not worth implementing. Likewise, they are implicitly built into society. Cars kill thousands of people every year, but we implicitly accept that the great, but perhaps not life-saving, benefits of automobile transportation outweigh those deaths.

Yes. No doubt. I suppose it would be great if you lost a limb working in some random Chinese factory and now you are reduced to a beggar on the streets and told that he's worth so much and his sacrifice would ensure the employment of his compatriots...

[madd0ct0r]

Ghetto edit - actually, that blog post ain't very good, but it does give links the OECD website which in turn has the root data for download.

I'd like to take the union membership sheet, the employee protection sheet (that stuff like the HSE example) and the economic performance of the country and run a regression, but this old computer can't cope with .xlsx files.

Anyone seen this done elsewhere?

[Surlethe]

You don't want year-to-year performance, you want to estimate long-run performance and correct for other variables (other worker protections, higher unemployment benefits, exogenous factors like availability of natural resources, so forth). There's no question that unions raise unemployment, because the argument is precisely the same for why supply is lower in an oligopolistic or monopolistic market. What you're really interested in is how much[/i ]do unions increase unemployment, how responsive is labor demand to unionization, does this responsiveness change with the economic environment (I believe studies indicate one of the major drags on recovery from the Great Depression was several pro-unionization laws FDR passed in the mid '30s), and so forth. These are interesting questions, and I would be very, very surprised if economists have not studied them at length and with increasingly sophisticated empirical techniques.

A quick google search reveals http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/wo ... wp8601.pdf, http://www.jstor.org/pss/2534885 (same paper?). A thorough lit review will help you.

I wish I could participate more in these economics threads, but my longer post in the "OWS-What do you think?" thread put me past today's limit

[madd0ct0r]

well, technically it was aerius's claim, so I might leave the sourcing up to him. like you said, it shouldn't be too hard, but might get a bit technical.