No 2/2015
CLR News
The future of the
EU health and
safety legislation
CLR
European Institute for
Construction Labour Research
www.clr-news.org
Contents
Note from the Editor ························································································ 4
Subject articles ·································································································· 6
Jan Cremers: Health and safety standards under deregulation threat.·······················6
Rolf Gehring: Technic design: A pathway to improve working conditions. ·············21
Rolf Gehring/Stephen Schindler: EFBWW asbestos campaign: state of play. ············35
Reports ············································································································· 48
EFBWW Public procurement seminar, 28-29 May 2015 (Susanne Wixforth) ·············48
Reviews ············································································································ 51
Hee-Chang Seoa, Yoon-Sun Leeb, Jae-Jun Kima, Nam-Yong Jeea (2015) Analyzing
safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation
modelling (Jan Cremers) ······························································································51
Benjamin Hopkins (2015) Occupational health and safety of temporary and agency
workers (Jan Cremers) ··································································································52
CLR News 2/2015
3
Note
from the editor
Jan Cremers,
clr@mjcpro.nl
4
A few weeks ago, the Dutch
labour inspectorate published
its report on occupational
accidents in the period 2010
to 2013. The inspectorate
reported on all the cases
investigated and came up
with details on sector, type of
registered accidents (in 2013:
2000 cases), number and type
of breaches and specific at
risk groups. Apart from the
fact that construction was
(again) high on the list of
most
dangerous
sectors
(number two), the most
striking finding was the risks
for newcomers and migrants.
Out of fifteen workers, one is,
on average, confronted with
accidents at the workplace.
Among the high-risk groups,
you will find agency workers,
youngsters and temporary
workers. Moreover, among
the
victims
of
serious
accidents, one out of eight
workers
has
another
nationality, with a fatality
rate that is twice as high as
for Dutch workers. This is in
itself already good reason for
a strong occupational safety
and health policy all over
Europe,
and,
with
the
mobility of workers being
prominent on the EU agenda,
to work out a more coherent
CLR News 2/2015
and unified, upwards oriented
policy in this field as a matter
of urgency.
This issue of CLR-News is
dedicated
to
this
very
important theme. The first
contribution
questions
whether
the
OHS-policy
developed is internal market
proof and resistant enough to
the
reigning
dogma
of
deregulation. My conclusion is
that the EC is leaning too
much on so-called evidence
coming
from
business
consultants and their very one
-dimensional patchwork of
attitudes
and
other
‘irritations’
expressed
by
entrepreneurs. Rolf Gehring
makes two contributions. One
is about the assessment of the
Machinery Directive 2006/42/
EC
that
provided
the
regulatory basis for the
harmonisation of the essential
health
and
safety
requirements for machinery at
EU level. Already the old
Machinery Directive 98/37/EC
aimed to formulate clear
criteria in terms of free
circulation and safety of
machinery. Several aspects of
this Directive are important
for the woodworking and
building
sectors
(sawing,
Note from the editor
lifting
materials,
underground
work). In his second contribution, he
updates, together with Stephen
Schindler, the EFBWW activities in
the fight against asbestos and
reports about a number of meetings
with EU services to discuss the
relationship between various EU
policies (such as energy efficiency,
waste policy, market surveillance
and training) and the asbestos issue.
quite sure that the quarterly will
continue to serve its readers with
valuable
important
scientific
research and related information
about construction labour.
The report included is from Susanne
Wixforth
of
the
Austrian
Arbeiterkammer who contributes
with a short overview of the main
themes discussed during a seminar
on the new procurement rules in
Europe. The issue rounds up with
two reviews from my side that fit in
the OHS-theme.
In my very first note from the editor,
back in 1993, I wrote that the aim of
CLR-News was to report on
important
developments
and
research projects in the construction
field seen from the workers’ point of
view. Now, more than 80 issues later,
I will withdraw from this important
post. I have accepted a new job at
the Law School of the Tilburg
University and have decided to hand
over
the
post
of
editor.
Notwithstanding this, I think that
the added value of CLR-News is still
undisputed. We have discussed my
intentions at the AGM and I am
CLR News 2/2015
5
Subject
articles
Jan Cremers,
Tilburg University-Law School
HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS
UNDER DEREGULATION THREAT
At the start of the EU internal market
The Treaty of Rome that formulates the building blocks for
the foundation of the European Economic Community (1957)
underlines in Article 117 the aim of the member states to
work towards an upwards harmonisation of the living and
working conditions of its citizens and workers. The ambition
is clear, the free movement and mobility of workers
envisaged ask for European-wide, streamlined and joint legal
standards in the field of occupational health and safety (OHS).
In the ensuing years, the European institutions began to
work out a joint policy in this area (as for instance the
formulation of a harmonised list with recognised
occupational diseases in 1962)1. It took until the 1970s before
a more coherent EEC-action program for health and safety at
the workplace was concluded2.
Although from the very beginning there were collisions in the
EEC between economic reasoning and targets and the
necessary social policy, the European-wide legislation in the
OHS-field could flourish for a long time as a relatively
insensitive political item. Progress was made based on a
strong consensus among the experts involved in and outside
the European institutions. Besides, for a long period lip
service was paid to a progressive better regulation of working
conditions and health and safety during successive revisions of
the Treaties and the related festive ceremonies of the
European Council. Even the enlargement with the UK and
Ireland had no negative impact on this situation. Moreover, as
soon as the UK started to obstruct progressive development,
it was possible to continue this direction, by changing the
Treaties introducing the qualified majority in this area. The
1.
2.
6
Official Journal of the European Community, P 80, 31.8.1962
The European Council concluded on 21 January 1974 an action plan for social policy,
followed in June 1978 by an action program on health and safety at the workplace,
with special attention for migrant workers.
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
European regulation of health and safety got a boost in 1985
after the (then) EC-president Jacques Delors called this
legislation a cornerstone of the social dimension that was
necessary for the completion of the internal market. Here
again, the UK abstained from the concluded social protocol
(and the flanking social pact) that went side by side with the
Maastricht Treaty3.
The result was an ambitious package of European minimumstandards in the field of occupational health and safety, with
a framework directive that formulates the basic principles.
Underlying directives (some 20) specify these principles in
different areas and for different sectors and themes.
Consequently, a large part of national health and safety
legislation finds its origins in European regulation. In this area
the slogan European policy = national policy became thus
reality4.
However, by the end of the 1990s the political tide turned, as
EU-policy became more and more dominated by the primacy
of the economic freedoms and an absolute priority was given
to competitiveness and free trade. This will not be treated
here in detail. The UK continued with its blocking policy and
the country had a serious influence on the watering down of
law-making as the search for consensus remained a
diplomatic goal of the others. The East enlargement led to
the entrance of countries with only a tradition on paper in
the OHS-field (the former Eastern Bloc countries were always
among the first to ratify ILO-conventions), and the
globalisation and free trade lobby groups started to push for
deregulation of social standards. From that moment on,
hardly any piece of social legislation was tabled and finalised,
not only in the general social policy area, but also in the OHSfield. In recent years, this change of paradigm led to an
introduction of the deregulation dogma into the existing
legislation. In this contribution, I want to examine whether
3.
4.
Delors in an interview, 2009, www.cvce.eu
See the overview: http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/nl/consleg/latest/chap05202010.htm
CLR News 2/2015
7
Subject articles
EU-legislation in the field of occupational health and safety is
internal market proof and resistant against this neo-liberal
dogma. Beyond this, I want to advocate a more intensified
and detailed harmonisation, taken into account the increased
cross-border mobility of workers envisaged.
Is progressive health and safety legislation internal
market proof?
Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
health of workers at work (the ‘Framework Directive’)
formulates the basic principles to be respected for health and
safety at the workplace. The related specific directives have
functioned, after transposition into national law and
combined with important chemical agent provisions, limit
values and other product safety prescriptions that were
formulated for the free circulation of products and
machinery, as the main pillars for the health and safety
regime all over Europe. The directives prescribe minimum
standards and provisions, for instance with regard to
prevention and risk analysis, combined with mandatory
obligations for workers and employers. Clear information and
consultation rights of workers are included as well. Several
studies have revealed that both in countries with a long
tradition in the field of health and safety (i.e. Germany, the
Netherlands, the Nordic countries) and in new member states
EU policy in the OHS-field led to a new dynamic with
substantial improvements to the health and safety regime.
Moreover, although there was no explicit aim to harmonise
the regimes completely, the result of this exercise can
justifiably be characterised as an area (one of the few) that
led to real convergence. After the British opt-out ended in
May 1997, EU-principles even became, according to an official
British report, one of the most important building blocks for
health and safety legislation5.
5.
8
The EU-Directives played a substantial role in the formulation of the safety
standards in the British Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
1999. See: A guide to health and safety regulation in Great Britain (2013) Health and
Safety Executive, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse49.htm
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
It is quite remarkable that the legislative OHS-package with
minimum standards, developed after 1989, includes only few
considerations that defend these measures against regression
or future deterioration. In the considerations of the
Framework Directive it is stated that the Directive does not
justify any reduction in levels of protection already achieved
in individual member states, the member states being
committed, under the Treaty, to encouraging improvements
in conditions in this area and to harmonising conditions while
maintaining the improvements made. This also means that
the starting point is a process of convergence in a progressive
and upward direction. Given the fact that ‘social progress’ still
figures prominently in EU treaties as a central aim, one could
expect that the philosophy of non-regression and
encouragement of improvements should apply to national
transpositions that brought improvements beyond the
minimum. However, this is no longer the case.
The conclusion of health and safety directives was based on
large majorities in the Council and the European Parliament.
Professionals could do their work relatively 'undisturbed'
inside the Commission’s services, often in cooperation with
the European social partners, thus laying the foundations for
progressive EU policy in the area. Several observers nowadays
believe, for instance, that it is questionable whether the
conclusion of the Directive for temporary and mobile work
sites (the directive for construction sites, formulated in 1992)
would go that smoothly in the current political climate. This
Directive introduced all over Europe the notion of the safety
coordinator and the necessity of drawing up a health and
safety plan with a risk assessment (from the drawing board till
the final execution, even taking into consideration demolition
aspects of a building)6.
6.
R. Gehring, http://www.wiki-gute-arbeit.de/index.php/Die_europ%C3%
A4ische_Arbeits-_und_Gesundheitsschutzpolitik.1
CLR News 2/2015
9
Subject articles
Smart regulation of OHS-policy another word for
deregulation
Current European Commission strategy in the field of
occupational health and safety is characterised by a lack of
initiative, whilst deregulation is also announced. At the end
of 2013, the Commission designated several pending files in
the OHS-field as repealed (including the social partner
agreement in the hairdresser sector, proposals in the field of
muscular skeletal disorders and screen displays, environmental
tobacco smoke, and carcinogens and mutagens)7. The
Communication of the Commission was based on a so-called
Top10 consultation that highlighted the regulations
designated by SMEs as ‘most burdensome’. Under the cover
of smart regulation, the EU has started to deregulate and to
withdraw from legal action. Progressive regulation and
encouragement to improvement are activities from the past.
The European Commission will only come with improvements
if scientific evidence and the public request them.
The so-called high-level stakeholder group on administrative
burdens that advises the Commission on simplification and
reducing the administrative burden, the Stoiber-group, in the
meantime acts as if the its members are not aware of the fact
that the OHS-framework is based on minimum prescriptions.
Stoiber pleads for a ‘lean’ implementation into national law
and against 'gold-plating‘, or the inclusion of improvements
compared to the EU minimum. The European Commission
seems to take over this stand and advocates simplification, a
simplification to the regulatory framework, procedures and
burden for individuals and business that results first and
foremost in derogations or exemptions for small and mediumsized enterprises (‘to better suit the needs of SMEs’)8.
7.
8.
10
Communication of the European Commission, Regulatory Fitness and Performance
Programme (REFIT): Results and Next Steps, COM(2013) 685 final
Commission Staff Working Document, Regulatory Fitness and Performance
Programme (REFIT): Initial Results of the Mapping of the Acquis (2013), SWD(2013)
401 final.
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
The justification of the Department responsible for social
affairs (DG EMPL) is remarkable. DG EMPL first invokes the
EU Treaty (article 153.4), where it says that member states
may formulate better and improved rules, and thereafter
provides a long list of better, national provisions beyond the
EU minimum. Thus, implicitly DG EMPL blames the member
states that there is better regulation. How long ago is it that
encouragement to improvement was defended inside the
Commission’s services? Why is it no longer highly desirable to
progress and for what reason are member states no longer
stimulated to take the lead? The further development of a
progressive OHS-policy is no longer the starting point, let
alone the will of the member states ‘ to promote improved
working conditions and an improved standard of living for
workers, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the
improvement is being maintained ‘, as the Rome Treaty
suggests.
Consequently, we have to face a situation of defence, not of a
pro-active OHS-policy. The defenders of an EU-policy based on
competition and ‘leave it up to the market’ have found an
‘effective’ stick against progressive legislation. This lobby has
been very successful with its deregulation campaign, even
though there is no evidence of higher societal costs of the
existing OHS-legislation9. Besides, in those cases where costs
and benefits are measured, this often happens with a focus
on administrative costs for businesses, without further
attention paid to the positive societal effects and social
benefits. Occupational diseases and accidents (notably
fatalities) are not that easy to measure in economic or
monetary terms – unless we see labour as a commodity, not
an unusual viewpoint in neo-liberal terms.
The 1989 Framework Directive stated clearly that the
improvement of workers' safety, hygiene and health at work
is an objective, which should not be subordinated to purely
9.
See also: Informationskostenmessung EU-Benchmark und Gold-Plating-Analyse auf
Basis des Standard-Kosten-Modells (2006), Bertelsmann Foundation, Gütersloh.
CLR News 2/2015
11
Subject articles
economic considerations. The EU Action Programme for OHS
2007-2012 (COM [2007]62) still emphasised that better rules
cannot be watered down. In the Strategic Framework 20142020 the Commission’s aim is to simplify existing legislation
where appropriate to eliminate unnecessary administrative
burdens, while preserving a high level of protection for
workers’ health and safety and, when taking action, due
account should be taken of the costs to companies10.
Intermezzo – how business consultants investigate
The Stoiber-group underpins its recommendations with some
data. Most data stem from reports that were prepared by a
consortium of three agencies (Capgemini/Deloitte/Ramboll
Management, 2009 and 2010), dealing with the
administrative costs for business of the EU-legislation11. Close
examination of this research leads to serious question marks:
with regard to the method used (the Standard Cost Model –
SCM), the representativeness of the sample of respondents,
and the interpretation of the research findings. To a certain
extent, the authors are even aware of the weaknesses of the
SCM-method as they admit that this model does not assess
the political purpose of a measure. SCM measures and
analyses the necessary administrative tasks related to the
defined rules, not the profits and benefits of a piece of
legislation12. Consequently, one should be prudent with the
conclusions and recommendations of the research. The least
one can say is that proposals stemming from such a research
method, certainly if these proposals have far reaching effects
like the exemption from legislation, are weakly substantiated.
10. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an
EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020, COM(2014) 332
final, Brussels.
11. Capgemini, Deloitte, Ramboll Management (2010) EU Project on Baseline
Measurement and Reduction of Administrative Costs: Final Report, incorporating
report on Module 5.2 – Development of Reduction Recommendations.
12. As such, the measurement and analysis focus only on the administrative activities
that must be undertaken in order to comply with regulation, not on the benefits
that accrue from the legislation. Capgemini, Deloitte, Ramboll Management (2009)
Final report of Modules 3&4 for Working Environment Priority Area.
12
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
The survey was executed in face-to-face talks with employers
and the key method was an attitude measurement of the
‘perceived burden’. The data collection was based on the
‘irritation potential’ of the EU requirements. There is no
justification of the size of the sample with respondents
(relatively ‘small’ samples of businesses in six Member States
supplemented by existing data from other countries and then
extrapolated). It is in fact incomprehensible that hard
numbers and ‘accurate’ figures, which in the meantime figure
in many documents, are deduced based on this method. To
present this, without any reservation, as evidence for
proposals that will lead to the deregulation of OHS-policy is
downright absurd. Even worse, a majority of the European
Commission tends to embrace this patchwork and to rely on
its outcome in a campaign against red tape and too heavy
administrative burden. Besides, to focus on savings in the OHS
-field is doubtful, with more than 97% of all administrative
burdens originating from other (mainly non-social) internal
market legislation.
Perhaps still an illustrative example of the justification
applied. Stoiber and his group are using the SCM-study with
data originating from a small group of 6 countries (Bulgaria,
Estonia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Sweden), combined with
earlier data from 5 other countries. As said before, no
information is accounted on the size of the sample of
respondents, apart from the fact that the respondents stem
from the business environment. The data collected are
extrapolated to all other EU Member States, without taking
into account the fact that countries have plenty of space for a
transposition into national law that fits in their tradition,
level of protection and OHS-standards. The extrapolation
leads to obscure results. The highest OHS-costs are signalled in
France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain. All four countries
were not directly assessed (Germany and UK being in the
group of five countries with earlier data). The authors admit
that the outcome cannot be used for comparative
conclusions, but thereafter they present the results as strong
CLR News 2/2015
13
Subject articles
indicators ('a robust indication‘, Capgemini 2010). The Stoiber
-group subsequently applies the sometimes-absurd results of
the investigation without any reservations. One of the SCM
outcomes was used by Stoiber in 2009 to ‘prove’ that the costs
for companies of a mandatory health and safety plan all over
Europe amount to a yearly 567 million euro. The underlying
analysis states that the costs in Portugal are about 15 times
higher than in Sweden. Moreover, it takes 77 hours of labour
for the setup of such a plan in Portugal, against just 2 hours in
Romania. Next, these figures are extrapolated to all EU
countries, without any justification as to how this is done13.
Generously, our business consultants divide between ordinary
operating
costs
(‘business-as-usual’)
and
additional
administrative costs (88.9% of all costs) without justification
given for this distinction and the underlying calculation. In all
honesty, it has to be said that a later study, also commissioned
by the EC, concludes bluntly that the SCM-method is
inaccurate and that the methodological simplification leads to
suggestive findings, sampling bias and extreme ambiguity in
the presentation of the facts (CEPS 2013)14. However, this does
not prevent the EC from using the figures.
Free movement and OHS – construction as a pilot
Several studies come up with evidence that special measures
are needed for mobile workers with a migrant background,
sometimes because of language problems or a lack of
education, but mainly because of the fact that migrant
workers often work in sectors and workplaces with higher
safety risks and work pressure. Inadequate language skills,
combined with insufficient or no induction, increase the
probability of exposure to work-related accidents (see also
the Hopkins review in this issue). Besides, there is evidence
that elementary instructions are very often missing for
newcomers and for workers who are hired on a temporary
13. The authors: ‘The SCM does not aim at producing statistically valid results, but rather
estimates (i.e. figures based on relatively small samples or expert judgment)‘ and
'comparisons should be handled with caution‘ (Capgemini 2009).
14. Assessing the costs and benefits of regulation - Study for the European Commission,
Secretariat General (2013), CEPS, Brussels.
14
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
contract (with an increased accident risk of up to 50%)15. The
literature and statistics indicate a negative relationship
between temporary employment and occupational health
and safety16. Migrants work at sites and in jobs where there is
no time to lose, either for safety instructions, or for
preventive introduction (‘let’s get the job done’), with
sometimes severe consequences17. The European agency for
health and safety at the workplace states that, though not all
migrants are engaged in risky jobs, there are three major
worrisome problems: work that has to be pursued in high-risk
sectors and functions; communication problems attributable
to language and culture; too much overtime, often combined
with poor physical living conditions18. Given the fact that
access to local health care is not obvious or even not allowed,
the consequences are predictable19. A British case study, in
health care, with many migrant workers, concluded that
'calling in sick' is no option for agency workers and migrants.
It would mean the end of the employment; it would diminish
the chance to be recruited again; it represents a loss of
income, often without any guarantee of sick pay. The result is
‘biting the teeth and go’ and the attitude to pay less
attention to safety or health. The authors observed a lack of
the necessary induction and instruction with all the risks for
workers and even patients20.
15. www.arbeitsschutz-portal.de/beitrag/asp_news/3530/strukturierte-einarbeitung-soklappts-auch-mit-dem-neuen.html
16. Quinlan et al 2001, International Journal of Health Services, Volume 31, No. 2, pp.
335-441
17. Katrin Boege (2012) Preparatory study - the influence of labour migration on
prevention in Germany, Institut für Arbeit und Gesundheit der DGUV (IAG), Berlin.
Important research comes also from the Institute for Work&Health in Canada,
https://www.iwh.on.ca/topics/immigrant-workers-experiences
18. osha.europa.eu/de/priority_groups/migrant_workers
19. For example: Austrian media published a case of a 59-year old Hungarian worker
falling from height. Instead of alarming the emergency service – forbidden by the
gang master because it would become apparent that the work was done undeclared
– a colleague had to drive the man over the border (90 kilometres) to a Hungarian
hospital, where he died. http://www.krone.at/Oesterreich/Schwarzarbeit_kostet_59Jaehrigen_das_Leben-Kein_Notruf-Story-422590
20. Maroukis, T. (2015), Stretching the flexible labour: Temporary agency work and
‘bank’ labour in the lower skill echelons of the healthcare labour market in UK and
Greece, Journal of European Social Policy
CLR News 2/2015
15
Subject articles
The building sector remains the sector with, on the one hand,
a large segment of migrant workers and, on the other, the
appearance of temporary and mobile worksites with flexible,
short-term contracts. In the sector, a broad range of labour
contracts can be found with an instable and flexible layer of
(bogus) self-employed, temporary workers and day labourers
that are recruited via gang masters, agencies and other
middlemen21. British research reveals profoundly the high
frequency of fatalities among migrants on construction sites22.
Mandatory OHS-coordination between all involved actors on
a construction site, as prescribed by the European Directive on
temporary and mobile worksites (92/57/EEG), is of great
significance precisely because of frequent subcontracting and
employment through intermediates. This Directive aimed to
settle enhanced cooperation in the field of occupational
health and safety, starting from the concept phase. A crucial
condition is the mandatory duty of mutual exchange of
information23. Actually, it can be deduced from this duty that
thorough registration of all necessary information related to
OHS-aspects during the entire construction process should be
considered as part of normal procedure (‘business-as-usual’, in
REFIT-terms). However, we must conclude that the business
consultants, engaged by the EC, have a different view. Based
on their interviews, they conclude that this mandatory
coordination belongs to one of the most irritating OHSthemes for employers. Moreover, according to their
calculations (based on attitude-measures, remember), the
conclusion must be that 73.38% (very precise indeed, if we
look at the methodological question marks) of the
administrative work involved should be labelled an
administrative burden. Still, it has to be said, they are rather
generous (!); in other areas only about 10% of the costs
21. Harvey & Behling (2008) The Evasion Economy: False Self-Employment in the UK
Construction Industry, UCATT.
22. Migrants' Workplace Deaths in Britain, report Irwin Mitchell, March 2009, CCA 2009
23. Article 5.c Directive 92/57/EEC states that the coordinator has to prepare a file
appropriate to the characteristics of the project containing relevant safety and
health information to be taken into account during any subsequent works. Article 6
guarantees that the necessary provisions are implemented and adjusted, taking into
account the progress of the work.
16
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
involved are considered ordinary operating expenses
(Capgemini 2009). Finally, also in the treatment of this item,
the consultants come up with remarkable differences
between countries, ranging from countries where employers
do not have to ‘lose time’ with this burden and countries
where at least 40 hours of work are invested.
It can be assumed that the hard core of the workforce has
sufficient knowledge about occupational risks and the
necessary prevention. But, as several statistics indicate, it has
to be doubted that this is the case for newcomers and
temporary workers, like most migrants. It is therefore of the
utmost importance that all companies comply with the basics
of OHS-policy and that they can be made liable through the
whole chain. This notion is completely absent in the reasoning
of the EU-proponents of deregulation and burden reduction.
Even worse, DG Employment has repealed in the new policy
plan the explicit relation between migration and OHS as one
of the key priorities24. In the old strategic plan 2007-2012 the
EC listed four priorities (demographic development and
ageing of the workforce; new forms of labour relations
including self-employment and outsourcing; the development
of SMEs; and migrant work). In the new plan, demographic
change is seen as crucial as if labour migration is history. This
is the more remarkable given that the promotion of crossborder mobility still has primacy in the general Europe 2020
Strategy. The flanking OHS-policy in this area is thus not very
internal market proof.
Convergence or taken for granted
Specific OHS-risks in sectors have great similarity irrespective
of borders; this was the reason why the framework directive
and its associated directives speak about the need to assist the
member states in the development of further improvements
of their OHS-policy. At the start, the term harmonisation was
used cautiously; most experts saw it at the time as their task
24. EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020. COM(2014) 332
final
CLR News 2/2015
17
Subject articles
to create uniform or similar conditions as far as possible across
the EU. In reality this approach has led to a substantial
convergence; a positive result, certainly against the
background of growing mobility and externalisation of the
workforce. For instance, during a project of the joint labour
inspectorates it turned out that the existence of an OHScoordinator, as prescribed by the temporary and mobile
worksites directive, was relatively well known (though not
always ascribed to EU law)25. British research revealed that
migrants (from EU countries) had basic OHS-knowledge as a
result of the content of EU-legislation, because that
legislation was in the meantime implemented at home26.
However, it became clear during an analysis of the content of
the existing national websites for posted workers that the
provision and distribution of OHS-information among
migrants is still at its infancy or completely absent. Labour
inspectors noted that, during inspections, compliance with
the OHS-rules is poor and migrants are excluded from their
application. Especially lacking is the necessary cooperation
between all those (sub)contractors on site that work with
migrant workers. The inspectors therefore argue for training
from a European perspective and for strengthening the chain
of liability, with the customer or the main contractor being
responsible for the necessary and timely disclosures in the
required languages of OHS-information27.
The EU posting of workers Directive says that the OHSlegislation of the country where the work is pursued has to be
respected. A first evaluation of the compliance in this field
showed that little or no information was provided to posted
workers. National enforcement services, most often with too
few people, had their hands full with the control of
construction sites with foreign posted labour. There was
25. Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum
safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth
individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
26. See: Migrant work in times of crisis (2010) CLR-News 2-2010.
27. http://www.eurodetachement-travail.eu/synthese/home.html
18
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
frustration that the appropriate legal means were missing.
Besides, for the sanctioning of different breaches inspectors
could not act immediately and had to rely on the judiciary in
the country of origin28. The European Court of Justice
considers the free provision of services a matter of
supranational law; national legislation may not create barriers
for foreign service providers that are too high. The negative
consequences of economic freedoms cannot be brought
before any court in Europe, as posted workers are only eligible
in a very restricted way in the host country. Even more
complicated is the situation of third country workers who are
recruited via letterbox companies or other bogus middlemen.
Excessive overtime and the non-respect of rest periods cause
additional risk; fatigue, ignorance of the dangers, nonunderstood regulations, inadequate or no protection and an
unhealthy work environment do the rest.
Finally – fundamental right or production factor
The EU stimulates mobility and expects net migration in the
coming years. Labour migration could become one of the key
factors for the functioning of large parts of our labour market
with an ageing population29. So far, a majority of migrant
workers work in labour intensive, poorly paid and dangerous
so-called 3-D-jobs ('dirty, dangerous, difficult‘)30. Recruitment
takes place in the shady segment of the market, with no
commitment to OHS-issues. The EU internal market, based on
economic freedoms (notably the free service provision and the
freedom to establish firms), endangers the health of the
people, who actually embody the ideals behind this internal
market31.
28. Cremers J. and Donders P. (eds.) (2004) The free movement of workers in the
European Union. Directive 96/71/EC on the posting of workers within the framework
of the provision of services: its implementation, practical application and operation,
CLR Studies 4, Brussels, CLR/Reed Business Information.
29. According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work the success of the
EU-strategy depends largely on the EU’s ability to face up to the major demographic
challenges and the (consequences of) migration (Priorities for occupational safety and
health research in Europe: 2013-2020, 2013).
30. Originally formulated as 3-K in Japan: kitanai (dirty), kitsui (difficult or demanding)
and kiken (dangerous). Migrant workers (2007) Asian-Pacific Newsletter on
Occupational Health and Safety, Vol.14-2, 2007, ILO.
CLR News 2/2015
19
Subject articles
This is already such a strong argument for the further
improvement of the OHS-frame. Safety and health should not
be offered to the holy cow of competition (between member
states), let alone to plain commercial or business interests. The
ILO has advocated a progressive OHS-policy since WW II, with
special attention paid to migrant workers and vulnerable
groups32.
The labour perspective for labour migrants has to be more
than a future of functioning like a commodity, a willing,
easily available, international, mobile, second labour reserve.
In the ILO's Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944, the
international community recognised that ‘labour is not a
commodity’; labour is not like an apple or a television set, an
inanimate product that can be negotiated for the highest
profit or the lowest price. The EU must prevent labour
becoming a simple factor of production at will to deploy,
where profit is greatest. Therefore, permanent action in the
OHS-field is necessary and wise. Restraint in this area is a bad
counsellor. The improvement of occupational health and
safety may not become a paper tiger, but has to stay a
fundamental right, as the 1989 Community Charter of the
Fundamental Social Rights of Workers states: ‘Every worker
must enjoy satisfactory health and safety conditions in his
working environment. Appropriate measures must be taken
in order to achieve further harmonization of conditions in this
area while maintaining the improvements made. (…)The
provisions regarding implementation of the internal market
shall help to ensure such protection‘.
31. Bruno Monteiro (2014) Portuguese construction workers in Spain: situated practices
and transnational connections in the European field of construction, CLR-News 22014
32. ILO director Guy Rider, XX World Congress for Safety and Health at Work 2014,
Frankfurt.
20
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
TECHNIC DESIGN: A PATHWAY TO
IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS
Rolf Gehring,
EFBWW
Drivers of working conditions in construction
As in all other sectors of economic activity, construction work
is steadily changing and working conditions are affected in
various ways. Today’s main driver of change is the
‘deconstruction’
of
standard
employment.
Beside
circumventing and undermining collectively agreed payments
or suspending legal minimum rights against dismissals, the
deconstruction of standard employment ends up with the
exclusion of a growing share of workers from the companies’
health and safety management, from health and safety
services, from training or other essential parts of the OHS
system. In parallel, the political system is accompanying and
enhancing this tendency by not stopping or regulating the
erosion of standard employment and the related social
dumping and by worsening the labour relations achieved at
national levels (also by the Commission’s Country Specific
Recommendations) through protective EU (REFIT) and
national legislation . The EU’s concept of austerity has proved
to be a main driver in this respect. As an effect of the
deconstruction of standard employment, we are today facing
differing working conditions in the same occupation or type
of activity, depending on the status of the worker.
A publication of the Foundation for the Improvement of
Working and Living Conditions in Dublin, “Working
conditions and job quality: Comparing sectors in Europe”,
presents sector-related information on current working
conditions. The sectoral analysis is based on a previously
published “Fifth European Working Conditions Survey” and
highlights trends in terms of working time, work-life balance,
work organization, training, worker representation, the
psychosocial and physical environment and some other
aspects. The report shows that, as in the past, construction
work is still connected with a relatively high degree of multiCLR News 2/2015
21
Subject articles
tasking and multi-skilling and a widespread and high level of
autonomy in the organization of work. Also, not surprisingly,
there is a high possibility of suffering various physical hazards
in construction work. In this regard, the Dublin Foundation
report distinguishes between three areas of physical risk:
posture and movement-related; biological and chemical; and
ambient. Compared with other sectors of economic activity
presented in these graphs, one can conclude that, despite all
efforts and action to improve working conditions,
construction work tends to remain unsafe and destructive to
workers’ health.
However, the picture as presented by the Report of the
Dublin Foundation compares sectors and makes no distinction
between varying working conditions within a sector. Against
the political and especially the material background described
above, construction work today represents highly fragmented
zones of employment and an extremely colorful picture of
working conditions. And one can expect some bias in reports
such as the one from the Dublin Foundation since surveyors
and researchers have limited or no access to the most
precarious working conditions, as for example those for
migrant workers or in the black economy. The reality may be
worse than the picture presented by the report.
To improve working conditions in a sustainable way the
specific drivers of change need to be identified. If it is true
that working conditions are currently worsening due to
political decisions, the need to revitalise standard
employment and reestablish workers’ rights independent of
their respective employment status is substantial. In parallel
and, maybe as a precondition for gaining political power, the
capacity of trade unions to collectively bargain (distribution at
the source) is decisive for revitalizing standard forms of
employment.
22
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
However, there are also other drivers of working conditions
relevant to those aspects dealt with in this article, which
touch upon other aspects of labour relations and the political
field, including:
 New substances and materials used in the construction
process1 remain a hazard of highest concern. Even though
asbestos was banned some 20 years ago, the problem is
still highly present. Additionally, we face growing
problems with epoxy resins used for a broad schedule of
applications in construction or with dust emissions from
various materials. PCB is another big issue.
 Changes in the psychosocial environment caused by various
aspects of the work-process, e.g. the use of new type of
tools or machinery, changes in communication structures
or the hierarchy or changes in the relation between
various occupations, colleagues speaking other languages,
higher work pressure and shorter deadlines2.
 Another driver of change is the cultural environment as
well as the intrinsic culture of a sector of economic activity.
In this respect, the culture in the construction sector was
and still is seen as “macho” based. This is considered as a
hurdle for improving working conditions in the respective
work processes, in working methods or social behavior3.
 Work organization and work division, the design of work
processes, work routines and the interaction between man
1.
2.
Regarding this aspect, it is also of some interest to thoroughly survey the ongoing
TTIP negotiation. At EU level we have some Directives for the protection of workers
at work (chemicals Directive. carcinogenic and mutagens Directive or the Regulation
for the marketing of chemicals = REACH). An important basic principle in this
relation, the precautionary principle, is established in the European Aquis
Communitaire. This means that the producer needs to prove what effects the use of
a substance or product can have, so that it is not harmful. In the US it is the other
way around. The marketing of new substances, compositions or products is not
strongly restricted. People have to prove that exposure to the substance is causing
specific health damages.
The complexity of the subject and the fact that all the various elements and factors
cumulate in the wellbeing/psychosocial problems of a specific person is one of the
problems why it is extremely difficult to operationalize prevention activities related
to psychosocial risks. The current OSH campaign of the Bilbao Agency deals with the
issue and the material provided seems to be a very good example how to identify
related relevant aspects in working processes. https://osha.europa.eu/de/healthyworkplaces-campaigns/healthy-workplaces-manage-stress
CLR News 2/2015
23
Subject articles
and machinery. Here also the participation or nonparticipation of workers in the design of the work process
is a driver of quality
 The design of the technology used in the respective
occupation and specific work processes.
It is this last driver which is of the main interest for this article,
even though there are always links between various drivers.
Isolated consideration is just for analytical purposes.
Construction, traditionally not a high tech sector, is
nevertheless confronted with technological change on two
levels: materials and the technology deployed (tools,
machines, ICT).
The first aspect includes prefabricated products, processing
materials and chemicals of various types4. Chemicals in
particular are a traditional but also current and future risk.
The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EUOSHA) in Bilbao has pointed out that the combination of new
but also traditional chemicals and outsourcing/subcontracting
results in increased risk. On the other hand, it can also result
in new working methods and the enrichment of skills or
replace more hazardous substances.
3.
4.
24
An interesting research in this area has been published by Ajslev et. al., entitled
“Habituating Pain: Questioning Pain and Physical Strain as Inextricable Conditions in
the Construction Industry”. Based on concepts of Foucault (conditional orientation)
and Bourdieu (Habitus), they discuss how far cultural practices in the field are
reproducing patterns of work-practices, conceptions of pain or high work pressure
and whether they are incorporated/habitualized by workers as well as employers.
This mutual reinforcement creates a hurdle for changes in occupational safety and
health practices but, nonetheless, the habitus (as structured structure and
structuring structure – Bourdieu) is open to adaptation and change.
The traditional risk of dust (Asbestos fibers, silica, diesel exhausts, dust in general,
wood dust, welding fumes) is not gone and new types of product and substances are
steadily emerging (man-made mineral fibers, isocyanates, epoxy resins, construction
foams). Recently, a study in the UK has shown that the EU-Directive on the
limitation of chromate in cement has significant positive effects on skin diseases but
is, at the same time, counteracted by an increased occurrence of skin diseases caused
by epoxy resins. S J Stocks (2011): Has European Union legislation to reduce exposure
to chromate in cement been effective in reducing the incidence of allergic contact
dermatitis attributed to chromate in the UK?
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
The second change, the technology deployed, has an impact
on all aspects of health and safety conditions in the respective
work processes, including: exposure to physical agents and
chemicals, work organization, mental strain or the work load,
time patterns, qualifications, the division of work or further
aspects of work. An interesting question regarding the
genesis of new technologies is whether it is generally open in
its evolution or whether it is in itself determined. If we
consider technological innovation as principally open, we
need to answer the question of how far and how social
interests can be claimed for and integrated in the process of
innovation. In mature industrial societies especially, with their
highly differentiated fields of knowledge and specific
functions, many fields/stakeholders are involved in highly
work-sharing processes of science and production but act (as a
tendency) independent of each other. The next section
discusses the openness of technological developments by
presenting some positions and developments from
sociological discourse.
Reflections on the genesis of technic
Reflections and considerations about technology and its
relation to social life have experienced various paradigmatic
changes. Whereas the ancient world related theoretical
knowledge and practical life problems, a dual conception
won recognition in the modern age whereby two
independent worlds were seen to exist. In this view, technic is
considered as having its own being, carved out through
directional action, and man has to find solutions that are
predetermined; there is nothing to create and the needs of
daily life and creative ideas are suspended. This paradigm was
accompanied by a strongly positive connotation being
according to technic during the area of Bacon: technic is
progress and becomes a ‘secularized expectation of salvation’.
The zestful and innovative area of the first stage of
industrialization not only fulfilled many expectations in terms
of technological development but also resulted in
philosophical passivity regarding critical reflections on
CLR News 2/2015
25
Subject articles
‘téchne’. The world considered science and technic as morally
neutral. Francis Bacon said: ‘Inventions bless and do well
without harming someone (a sufferer) or injustice’5.
It was the other way around. The duty to drive technological
development and to discover new technical innovation
became a moral imperative. Technicians and scientists were
considered as the midwives of this process. It was the
American sociologist William Ogburn who expressed the
technological imperative of this age: ‘Everything that can be
done in the world of technic shall be done’6. What is of some
specific interest for our discussion is Ogburn’s idea of a
‘cultural lag’, meaning that human culture lags behind
technological process. Technical change initiates adaption
processes in human behavior and institutional processes.
Against the background of the potentially destructive forces
of technology - as experienced in two world wars, the use of
A-bombs, the immanent catastrophic potential of power
plants, the side effects of motorisation or the inhuman
conditions on assembly lines in industrial production with
their extremely short working intervals - traditional ideas of
technological development became obsolete. It was also
William Ogburn who asked about the consequences of
technical change for society. Indeed, he can be considered as
the pathfinder of the concept of ‘technology assessments’,
which became in principle the first tool of a more critical view
of technical innovation7, even though the intention in
presenting this was positivistic, just to help to more effectively
minimize the ’cultural gap’. The increasing criticism was that
the world of technology would do everything that is possible
but not what should be done8.
5. Ropohl 1996, p. 19/20
6. Ibid. p. 22
7. In 1973, the US “office of Technology Assessment” was instituted whereas the German
“Büro für Technikfolgenabschätzung des Deutschen Bundestages” opened only in
1989
8. In parallel, the scientific world discussed ethical problems. It was the physician Max
Born, who wrote a letter to A. Einstein, asking about the need to create an “international ethical codex of behaviour” for the scientific world. See also Ropohl (1996) p. 61
26
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
A third critical element, beside discussion of the ethical
foundations of engineering and science and technology
assessments, more and more influenced the debate somewhat
later within the sociology of technic: the question of how far
other parameters outside the scientific world determine
technological development. Whilst the two other aspects of
the discussion remain within the special branches of science
(they operate with objectified knowledge and do not
question the exclusive competence of engineers and
scientists), this third element, in contrast, addresses societal
structures/elements, how these influence the design, the very
possibility of it being put in place9 or the use of new
technology.
Distinct from Ogburn’s view, modern sociological discourse on
technology focuses on the social arrangements surrounding
technic design. Social practices and expectations are seen to
influence technological possibilities and constraints. Thereby,
viewpoints and interests other than technical or scientific
become formative in the process of technic design. The open
question is, how can we understand which areas are
interwoven in the whole process? Who are the stakeholders
with a specific interest in the respective technology? Another
open question concerns the limitations placed on the design
of the technology through existing structures, processes or
previous generations of the same respective technology.
Whereas the latter question represents more of an analytical
problem, the former is to a great extent a social question,
pointing too to the problem of imbalances in social power. If
we consider the design of technology as having its own
societal field10, there are various groups of protagonists with
differing specific functions and interests. Their specific
9. A high share of innovative work and patents never become reality because nobody is
willing to place them on the market. Thus, the economy acts as a driver of
technological development but also a potential hindrance.
10. The term field and the following considerations are referring to the concept of Pierre
Bourdieu. See for example: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/
works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm
CLR News 2/2015
27
Subject articles
background and habitus (Bourdieu) determine their view on
the topic and their understanding. Additionally, they are not
equipped equally with power (social and cultural capital Bourdieu). It makes a difference whether an engineer
presents a position regarding the needs and possibilities of
changing the design of a tool/machine/technology or a
worker who is just using this tool. It equally makes a
difference whether one worker is sitting at a table with six
engineers or one engineer is at the same table with five
workers. It remains an unsolved problem to guarantee that
workers have a real say in processes concerning the design of
their working conditions. There have, however, been
attempts to overcome inhuman work arrangements, the use
of technology and poor design, especially in reaction to the
strong criticism of industrial working conditions at the end of
the 60ies and the early 70ies of the last century. In this period,
the active involvement of workers was not common but was
an expressive political concept here and there. Whilst, for
example, the processing of the German programme
’Humanisierung der Arbeit’ was (mainly) without the direct
involvement of workers, at the same time in Italy a movement
developed in which doctors and engineers in direct
collaboration with workers tried to fight heteronomous
working conditions by designing better workplaces.
Still, the design of technology as a combined social-technical
process, organized as a cooperative process with the active
involvement of the various protagonists, is not common.
Against the ever growing functional differentiation in mature
industrialized countries especially, it becomes more and more
difficult to introduce holistic approaches. Most activities are
very much focused on one group of protagonists. Two good
examples of the latter are: the brochure ‘Design for safe
construction’, with instructions on taking into account
general principles of prevention in the education of
architects, an approach stimulated by the provisions of the
European Construction Site Directive (92/57/EC); and a
training module for engineering education on ergonomics
28
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
(Ergonomie-Lehrmodule
für
die
Ausbildung
von
Konstrukteuren), published by the German Commission Worksafety and Standardisation (KAN). In France, the authorities
have introduced a more integrative approach for the design
of robots in safely removing asbestos. Some types of robot
were designed for specific occupations and in close
cooperation with workers doing the respective job.
More in the direction of a holistic approach is the so called
‘Feedback Method’ concept, developed in joint collaboration
between Italian occupational physicians and the European
Trade Union Institute. This aims to involve workers in the
process of standardization. By running workshops at company
level, the knowledge of workers concerning the use of
specific tools, machines or technology, poor design or
problems arising in the conditions of use, are surveyed,
documented and feed into the process of standardization.
This concept was also the inspiration for a concept developed
by the EFBWW and executed for the first time in a social
partner project on wood dust. In two one-day workshops, the
producer and users of wood processing machinery were
invited to discuss problems and possible solutions for dust
emission for specific types of machinery11. Now, EFBWW has
proposed a similar concept to the European Construction
Industry Federation (FIEC), aimed at the improvement of
construction machine technology.
Coalition building for better construction machines
As referred to earlier, the construction sector is not a high
tech sector in terms of developing new technologies, but is
one that is highly affected by the new technologies and new
generations of tools, machinery and materials used in the
sector. This interaction of new techniques and technologies
and existing work processes and the integration of new
technologies into production processes can improve
11. Results of the project are published in a brochure available in different languages at
the EFBWW webpage: http://www.efbww.org/default.asp?Issue=Less
Dust&Language=EN
CLR News 2/2015
29
Subject articles
productivity as well as working conditions or may result in
new hazards and possibly unsafe work situations. Further, it
will touch on work organisation, the division of labour and, in
consequence, vocational education.
The EFBWW and the FIEC decided to address the issue of a
still very high number of (fatal) accidents in connection with
the use of construction machinery and the perceived
insufficient protection of the respective European Standard
for construction machines. Reports were received from
Germany, France and other countries explaining the situation
with regard to accidents and the overall problem of general
safety and ergonomics as well as initiatives looking into
solving existing problems. After discussions in the social
dialogue working party on occupational safety and health, an
ad-hoc working group was established to deal with the
subject further and to propose joint activities.
The working party involved experts from the French labour
ministry and a German labour inspectorate specifying
problem areas and types of machinery. The working group
then contacted the producer side, represented at European
level by CECE (Committee for European Construction
Equipment). Finally EFBWW, FIEC and CECE decided to apply
for a joint project aimed at improving safety and health
conditions when working with construction machinery by
establishing, as a first step, a better dialogue between all
parties concerned. Such dialogue should enable partners’
concerns to be investigated, information exchange, the
review of solutions, and exploration of ways and means to
improve existing design, the configuration of machinery and
normative processes. The European trade union IndustriAll is
representing the workers’ side in the machine producing
sector and is also involved in the project.
The approach of the project is to understand the complexity
of the problem. First, the main characteristics of construction
work need to be recognised. Unlike other (stationary)
30
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
workplaces, a construction site and each of its workplaces are
continuously changing and require collaboration between
workers of various professions and occupations. Additionally,
the environment of a construction site is extremely
heterogeneous and can change constantly too. When using
construction machinery, especially earth-moving machinery,
these characteristics are of great relevance in considering the
safety of persons around (either workers or the general
public) and have been the source of serious and fatal
accidents. Hazard sources include the (heavy) machine itself,
the amount of ground or material moved, interaction with
other parts or types of machinery (quick coupler), the possibly
inadequate operation of the machine, and the overall safety
of the construction site. Machine design issues play a role as
well (access to the machinery, the driver’s seats, the overall
ergonomics of the machine, accessibility for cleaning and
maintenance activities). Within the scope of the project, it is
intended to cover issues with regard to newly developed and
produced machines, as well as to explore the situation
regarding older machinery still in use. Beside the
arrangement of workplaces, safe processing of various types
of machinery or the appropriate training of workers,
machinery safety standards can contribute to safer use and
consequently to a decrease in accidents and occupational
hazards.
The overall goal of the project is to contribute to the better
protection of construction machine operators and the persons
around them. In terms of practical activities, it is planned to
bring together the producers and users of some specific types
of machinery. The aim is to have direct communication
between these two main stakeholders, allowing for the
creation of ways to improve the machinery design by
improving mutual understanding of concerns and limitations,
and exploring how existing normative routes can be
enhanced. The users’ side will be represented by companies,
as well as by workers/worker representatives. Direct
communication between the producer and the user, including
CLR News 2/2015
31
Subject articles
workers who operate the respective type of machinery will
provide a realistic view on the different conditions of service.
In terms of technic-sociology, the target of this approach is
that both worlds (the social and the technical one with its
various stakeholders) interact towards a social genesis of
technic.
One very specific ground for accidents on construction sites
relates to operator visibility around the machines. To ensure
worker safety, the Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC requires
that ‘appropriate devices must be provided to remedy hazards
due to inadequate vision’. Both, industry and equipment user
groups as well as the regulator consider that the harmonized
European standard EN 474-1, which complements the
Machinery Directive with respect to visibility from the driving
positions, should be improved and a revision is underway.
Since the standardisation process is in the hands of a private
institution, it is difficult to channel in social (workers’)
interests and to give them the importance they deserve.
However, the European Commission’s new approach to the
standardisation process pays more attention to involving
‘interested parties’12 in the process.
A better dialogue between the project partners could support
not only the current revision process, but could also help in
establishing a structural exchange of information and
deepened understanding. This would also benefit in
particular the normative process in terms of quality and
credibility as well as speediness and implementation.
The project partners intend to hold five one-day workshops to
organise discussions between the users and producers of
construction machinery in the context of the normative
environment. Expertise from this project and all its results will
also deliver input for any activity of the European legislator
12. Interested parties are industry, including Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs),
consumers, trade unions, environmental Non Governmental Organisations (NGO),
public authorities, etc.
32
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
both at the legal level as well as in terms of standardisation.
The first of the five workshops will serve to establish which
are the main issues and concerns that the project partners
believe need to be explained, discussed and further explored.
This workshop will take stock of the actual situation in
relation to various construction activities and the specific
working conditions as well as of existing structures and means
of dialogue between users and producers. A further
workshop will deal in particular with the existing regulatory
and standardisation processes. Specific issues related to the
use of machines that could become the subject of one of the
subsequent workshops are:
 Access to the machines/ ergonomics
 The operator’s view/visibility
 The use of quick couplers
 Safety on construction sites (when using earth-moving
machinery)
 Operator qualifications and training
Each workshop will not only identify areas of concern,
hazards, design problems, problems in processes, etc., but also
discuss possible solutions. FIEC and EFBWW also intend to
identify more in detail possible areas of hazards arising from
various types of construction machines. This will be done via
an inquiry based on a form sent to the national affiliated
members of FIEC and EFBWW. This activity shall serve as a
preparation for the first workshop.
It is intended to communicate the findings of the workshops
widely in the construction and machinery-manufacturing
communities. Specific communication needs and tools will be
decided following each workshop. In doing this, the
partnership of the project also aims at closer cooperation
between the two sectors concerned (construction and the
machinery-producing metal sector).
CLR News 2/2015
33
Subject articles
Planned deliverables of the project are:
 A summary report on the inquiry
 A joint declaration, including proposals for the better
involvement of interested parties in the standardisation
process
 Fact sheets for the various topics dealt with in the
workshops
Deliverables will be translated into various languages and the
fact-sheets especially will be directed to the stakeholders at
company level in both sectors involved.
——————————
Literature:
 Ajslev, Jeppe Z. N. (2013): Habituating Pain: Questioning Pain and Physical Strain as
Inextricable Conditions in the Construction Industry. Nordic journal of working life
studies 3/2013, http://www.nordicwl.com/?page_id=130
 Endruweit, Günter; Trommsdorf Gisela (eds.) (1989): Wörterbuch der Soziologie,
Stuttgart
 European Agency for safety and health at work (2009): Expert forecast on emerging
chemical risk related to occupational safety and health, Belgium
 European Federation of Engineering Consultancy Associations / Architects’ Council
of Europe (2006): Design for Safety in Construction, Brussels
 Eurofound (2014): Working conditions and job quality: Comparing sectors in Europe,
Dublin
 Gehring, Rolf (1998): Über die Notwendigkeit eines Allgemeinbildungskonzeptes für
die betriebliche Erwachsenenbildung – Technikgenese und sozialer Raum als
Leerstellen der Betriebspädagogik, Thesis Hannover (not published)
 Kommission Arbeitsschutz und Normung (2008): Ergonomie-Lehrmodule für die
Ausbildung von Konstrukteuren, Rheinbreitenbach (under revision)
 Lenk, Hans (1982): Zur Sozialphilosophie der Technik, Frankfurt am Main
 Ropohl, Günter (1996): Ethik und Technikbewertung, Frankfurt am Main
34
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
Rolf Gehring/
Stephen
Schindler,
EFBWW ASBESTOS CAMPAIGN:
STATE OF PLAY
EFBWW
In 2011, the EFBWW started its asbestos campaign. The
campaign followed a previous intense debate on the current
situation and built on the main conclusions drawn from that
debate. In brief: even though the European-wide ban on
asbestos had till 2005 to be implemented by all member
states, European citizens and workers are still potentially
exposed to asbestos fibres in their daily life. Construction
workers are especially exposed in occupations like
maintenance, repair work, measures for better energy
efficiency in buildings, demolition and other activities.
Concerned are mainly those professions not dealing
professionally with asbestos, and it is the younger generation
of construction workers that knows less and less about
asbestos.
The EFBWW has defined five main areas1 of activities needed:
 The registration of all asbestos sources in public and
private buildings
 Better working conditions, including improvements
(revision) to the related EU Directive
 The training of both groups of workers – professional
asbestos workers and those professions normally not
expected to deal with asbestos-containing material
 The recognition of asbestos-related diseases
 The compensation of recognized asbestos diseases
 And the overall aim to initiate national, regional, local or
sectoral action plans for the safe removal of existing
asbestos in public and/or private buildings
1. EFBWW is also engaged in the international fight against asbestos. For many years,
the Building and Woodworkers International has been running specific campaigns
and actions in this field and the EFBWW has been supporting these actions. However,
for the specific European campaign programme, the international level is not a focus.
CLR News 2/2015
35
Subject articles
People involved in the preparation of the campaign were
convinced that success will only be achieved if we manage to
combine the political and the practical level, meaning that
initiatives towards, say the European legislator need to be
backed and accompanied by practical action such as social
partner projects or initiatives directed to the sector or
initiatives at company level. Therefore, from the beginning,
EFBWW has tried to support affiliated trade unions at
national level and to stimulate and support action.
Of course, the campaign has also had other goals behind the
content-related aims of the campaign in its narrow sense,
including:
 Coalition building in relation to the political field and the
social partners at both levels, employers’ organisations and
companies
 Improving the relation to victim organisations, often
having understandable reservations towards trade unions
 Capacity building in the sense of improving our influence
at the European level and in relation to its various
institutions, especially the Parliament and the Commission
 Strengthening the coordinating role of EFBWW
 Using the topic and related action actively to organize new
members
Overall achievements
The campaign has left its marks here and there and, in
consequence we have refreshed a political debate on action
needed to solve the remaining problems with asbestos. We
have steadily confronted the European Commission with
initiatives, questions and the request for stronger
cooperation, but also with demands for specific (legal) action.
This specific achievement was very much based on successful
initiatives towards and cooperation with the European
Parliament (EP), the European Economic and Social
Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions (CoR)
too, resulting in asbestos resolutions of the EP and the EESC2.
36
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
For many of the national affiliated members of EFBWW the
asbestos topic is now (again) high on the agenda. Their
actions range from initiatives towards the legislator over
practical action at company level or on specific aspects of the
asbestos issue to initiatives for safe removal. Many affiliates
touched on the issue at the EFBWW’s annual European action
day on occupational safety and health. Further, quite a
number of national activities and conferences were organized
by authorities, trade unions, labour inspectorates and
prevention institutions as well as by trade federations. Often
the EFBWW’s campaign was a point of reference and was
often directly involved.
The asbestos topic is an important topic of today’s agenda in
the European Social Dialogue for the construction sector. At
the beginning of the campaign, FIEC, as the European
employer organisations and social partner of EFBWW, was not
convinced about the relevance of the topic today. Agreement
was founded just on the need for better information and
training of workers and better information towards
companies. EFBWW and FIEC have run a project in joint
cooperation with some preventions institutions from national
level and training institutes. The result of this project is a
series of Asbestos Information Modules3 disseminated in a
follow up project which was also executed with the
involvement of the International Association of Labour
Inspectorates (IALI). The dissemination seminars also
stimulated some social partner action at national level.
The cooperation with FIEC has improved and resulted not
only in jointly running the two projects but also in close
cooperation regarding the preparation of an European
Economic and Social Committee’s opinion on asbestos and
some joint initiatives towards the European Commission (next
2. EP Resolution: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//
TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0093+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN; EESC Own Opinion: http://
www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ccmi-opinions
3. The Asbestos Information Modules are available in various languages: http://
www.efbww.org/default.asp?Issue=Asbestos&Language=EN
CLR News 2/2015
37
Subject articles
section). FIEC and EFBWW are now pushing the European
Commission to include asbestos removal action in its policy for
energy efficiency in buildings.
Some material and publications, partly available in different
languages, have been worked out and published over the last
four years:
 The EFBWW campaign paper, accompanied by a leaflet
and a poster
 The CLR-book on asbestos: ‘The long and winding road to
an asbestos free workplace’
 The Asbestos Information Modules for the instruction of
construction workers from occupations not professionally
dealing with asbestos
 A research paper on the recognition and compensation of
asbestos-related diseases in Central and Eastern European
Countries4
 Articles for various publications
 An on-line training course for Asbestos Awareness Officers5
Of high importance for the growing attention and
importance the issue has today at European level were the
two own initiative reports of the EP and the EESC. In both
cases, it was the EFBWW giving the initial impulse for the
initiative. And in both cases, the EFBWW was strongly
involved in the preparation of the resolutions. Both
documents also had some impact on the position of the
European Commission, which we should not underestimate.
4. EFBWW ran this project jointly with the European Trade Union Confederation and
the International Ban of Asbestos Secretariat. The main aim of the project was to
complement a previous research project providing data on the recognition and
compensation of asbestos related diseases in 13 West-European countries. The
institute Kooperationsstelle Hamburg worked out the research and a summary of the
research project, covering data from the Central and Eastern European region, is
available. See also the EFBWW webpage: http://www.efbww.org/default.asp?
Issue=Asbestos diseases&Language=EN
5. This on-line course will be the result of an EU funded Leonardo Da Vinci project
(ABClean project) with partners from different levels and various countries. The
results will be presented at a final project seminar on 10th September in Brussels.
38
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
This can clearly be seen with regard to a conference that took
place in Brussels on 24 June 2015. This conference, whose
organisation was supported by EFBWW and FIEC and the
victims organisations ABEVA (Belgium) and IBAS, was initiated
by the EESC to promote its own opinion on asbestos and by
the Committee of the Regions (CoR). Participation was by
more than 80 persons from various levels, European and
national organisations, authorities and victim organisations,
trade unionists and politicians. What is worth mentioning is
the fact that three persons from various directorate Generals
from the European Commission (DG Employment, DG GROW
and DG Energy) contributed as speakers and actively took
part in the discussion. And this was precisely the main goal of
the conference, to confront the European Commission with
the specific policy proposals formulated in the two
resolutions.
CLR News 2/2015
39
Subject articles
In relation to this, it is worth mentioning that the speakers
from the European Commission all positively reacted to the
demand for a more consistent EU policy. The asbestos
problem needs to be considered in various EU policy areas.
One speaker from the Commission considered the
establishment of an inter-service Committee within the
Commission as an appropriate way forward. This found very
strong support from the whole audience.
For a consistent EU policy
Analysing the links between the five areas of action as
formulated in the EFBWW action programme and the various
EU policies, relations to many EU-policies in the area can be
seen. And the two resolutions of the EP and the EESC are
even more precise in formulating specific demands directed
towards various EU policies. In this relation the statement of
the representatives from the European Commission gave
some hope to paving ways to a more consistent EU-policy.
Even in the month before the conference the EFBWW was
arranging a number of meetings with various EU services to
discuss the relation between their respective policy field and
the asbestos issue. In the following, we briefly describe four
examples of such relations.
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
The EFBWW supports the demands made by the European
Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee
calling on combining efforts for improving energy efficiency
in buildings with the removal of remaining asbestos. After all,
there is a significant overlap between the two policy areas as
renovation to improve energy efficiency in buildings typically
involves the parts of a building where asbestos has been used
extensively in the past such as the roof or the windows, where
asbestos can be found for example in insulations or window
putty or fillers. In some member states, long term
improvements such as solar panels on roofs may not be
permitted if a building contains asbestos that will have to be
removed in the medium term and this is, therefore, posing an
40
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
obstacle to improving energy efficiency in such instances if
not tackled at the same time. In addition asbestos was utilized
over-proportionally in the building stock dating from the
1960s and 70s that is now due for renovation.
Given the increasing frequency of work that may result in
asbestos exposure, stemming from the focused attention on
energy efficiency in buildings as well as the factors associatd
with an aging buildings stock dating back to the heydays of
asbestos use, it is of paramount importance when formulating
targets for energy efficiency in buildings to make
accompanying provision for asbestos recognition, protection
and removal. This is particularly the case for public buildings,
where employees and the general public risk being exposed
to asbestos; in the UK, for example mesothelioma rates are
particularly high among teachers whose work places are
contaminated with this deadly substance.
The European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on
asbestos-related occupational health threats and prospects for
abolishing all existing asbestos (2012/2065(INI)) includes a
reference to combining the existing strategy for energy
efficient renovation with asbestos removal:
“Art. 6 Proposes the combining of a strategy for the
renovation of buildings to make them more energyefficient with a parallel gradual removal of all asbestos”
Likewise, the European Economic and Social Committee is
asking the Commission in point 1.7 of its Own Opinion to
combine its policies on energy efficiency in buildings with
plans for the safe removal of asbestos.
In this relation, EFBWW arranged a meeting with a person
from DG ENERGY, on 03.02.2015. The purpose of the meeting
was to find out how to influence the Commission’s strategy.
The representative of the European Commission pointed out
that the key directive, the Energy Performance in Buildings
directive 20106, will be under review this year.
CLR News 2/2015
41
Subject articles
The Commission will prepare a public consultation after
publication of the Communication on the Energy Union (end
of February). The consultation has the aim of identifying
negative impacts of the directive as well as opportunities,
such as the removal of asbestos. The public consultation will
go hand in hand with an EC internal inter-service consultation
and we were informed that it would be worthwhile for us to
contact other directorates to explore ways of influencing their
consultation response. The consultation provides an excellent
occasion to formally propose combining the policy with
asbestos removal. Relevant Commission Directorates for a
potential interpolation are DG Employment, DG Sanco and
DG Environment.
Another useful piece of information obtained at this meeting
was the plan for a database that will take stock of energy use,
and energy savings in European buildings. The project,
coordinated by BPIE (Building Performance Institute Europe),
will entail a cost efficient mapping of building performance
that can give a general idea of prevalent building types and
performances in a given neighbourhood or region; this could
be a useful blueprint for a similar asbestos mapping exercise
to compliment the registration of asbestos-containing
buildings.
Market Surveillance
Despite the ban on production and ongoing removal efforts
towards a total eradication of asbestos in Europe, suspicion is
mounting that asbestos continues to be imported to the EU.
Therefore, from the beginning of our campaign, we put some
emphasis on the fact that imports of asbestos-containing
products to the European market are a fact. Among other
products, colleagues from Australia have reported that
asbestos-containing construction materials are being
imported from China, evading market surveillance. Something
similar could happen in Europe; already in 2012 a large
6. See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32010L0031&from=EN
42
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
shipment of 1040t of asbestos arrived in Italy, where an
investigation was launched. Currently it is difficult to assess if
asbestos imports are taking place elsewhere in Europe and to
what extent. In response to these repeated observations by
our members that asbestos-containing products are still
imported to the European Market, we arranged a meeting
with the European Commission (12th February 2015) to
discuss the provisions of the Product Safety and Market
Surveillance Package (COM(2013) 75 final) for joint market
surveillance activities by national authorities7.
Even though the EU is not directly responsible for market
surveillance, some EU law exists in the field. The new
approach of this policy, as presented in the Joint Market
Surveillance Group, consisting of representatives of national
market surveillance authorities and responsible for
coordinating joint actions, is also aiming at coordinated
European and cross-border action. Currently one joint action
per year is foreseen.
The European Commission has offered to put us in contact
with the chair of the Joint Market Surveillance Group
responsible for construction materials (and potentially the
chair of electrical products). This could offer an opportunity
to present our case; the group could then initiate a joint
action if this is considered relevant. At the very least, if it does
not lead to joint action it would already help to draw the
attention of national authorities to the issue.
However, to make a strong case we were advised to gather
concrete evidence for new asbestos-containing materials/
products entering the European Market. In the light of the
personal and budgetary limitations of national market
surveillance authorities, it is important to identify:
7. See also: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/product-safety-marketsurveillance/ and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52013PC0075&from=EN
CLR News 2/2015
43
Subject articles
 Examples of specific products containing asbestos e.g.
insulation, cables, room heaters, boilers, fire proof doors
etc.
 Brand Names
 Country of origin
 Any other information that could help identify the product
Since there is no specific timeframe for this, building a strong
case is more important than quick action. Once we have
gathered concrete evidence with the help of our members,
we hope to pursue this issue further at European and national
levels.
Training of workers
Training is another asbestos-related aspect that deserves
recognition. Whilst workers in specialized asbestos removal
companies are usually well trained and qualified to handle
asbestos, this is not the case for workers who may encounter
asbestos accidently during the course of activities such as
renovation, maintenance and demolition. In addition,
training requirements vary across Member States according to
their respective patterns of asbestos use in the past. For
example, many Central and Eastern European countries used
asbestos primarily in asbestos cement roofs; in turn, training
for asbestos recognition was not always a priority. Given the
highly mobile nature of the construction sector, some workers
may not be sufficiently trained to recognize the hazards they
may encounter when working abroad. To address this issue,
the EFBWW has been partner in a Leonardo Da Vinci Project
called ABClean to create an e-learning course for persons
responsible for asbestos awareness in companies that might
encounter asbestos unexpectedly in the course of their work.
The project will conclude later this year and the final
conference will take place on 10th September in Brussels.
Interesting in this respect are also the EU initiatives under the
title ‘Build Up’ and the previous programme ‘Build Up Skills’,
geared to supporting the implementation of so-called green
44
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
skills into construction education and training structures. The
execution of this programme, which expressly targets
improvements in the skills and qualifications needed for
energy efficiency in buildings, is the responsibility of the
European Commission Agency for Small and Medium Size
Enterprises (EASME),, responsible also for the implementation
of the directive on energy efficiency in buildings.
At the request of EFBWW, a meeting with representatives
from EASME took place on 11 June 2015. We were informed
that EASME contributed to the Commission’s response to the
EESC opinion regarding the proposed combination of EUaction in the fields of training of workers (asbestos) and
energy efficiency. An official response by the Commission will
be published later this year.
The Agency is also responsible for the programming of the
Horizon 2020 programmes. In this connection, we have raised
the question of possible research on safer handling of
asbestos-containing material. This was also stimulated by a
report from France that some robots were engineered to
safely execute asbestos removal work. However, we were
informed that the programme planning for 2018 – 19 is
starting soon but initiatives like ours have to go through
national contact points, which will be consulted before
formulating the new work programme.
What we learned from this meeting is also the fact that a
highly differentiated European Commission, because of its
complex internal structure, is extremely hard to push towards
a consistent policy. Much too often one Directorate General
does not know that another one is dealing with the same
issue as itself.
Waste Policy
Despite the ban on asbestos production in the EU, the
remaining asbestos contained in buildings and elsewhere will
pose a challenge for the disposal of asbestos-containing waste
CLR News 2/2015
45
Subject articles
for decades to come. This is compounded by the low
biodegradability of asbestos, making it a long-term problem
even after it was landfilled. Experiences in Poland, the only
country with a nationwide action plan for asbestos removal,
demonstrate the need for more landfills suited to accepting
the high quantities of asbestos-containing waste.
In the light of recent initiatives at European level by the
European Parliament and the report by the European
Economic and Social Committee (EESC) on Freeing the EU of
asbestos (own-initiative opinion) calling for action to remove
asbestos in the EU, it seems appropriate to have an overview
of the relevant EU waste legislation or the lack thereof.
The EU’s general framework for waste management consists
of four directives, including the Waste Framework Directive
2008 /98/EC, the Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste,
the Industrial Emissions Directive (Waste Incineration)
2010/75, and the Waste Shipment Regulation 1013/2006. In
addition, there are seven directives dealing with specific
waste streams, none of which address a systematic approach
to managing asbestos-containing waste at European level.
The Waste Framework Directive 2008 /98/EC, and the Directive
1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste outline general
requirements for waste management, but implementation is
at the discretion of member states, leading to inconsistencies
across the EU.
More specific legislation relevant to asbestos-containing
waste is the Directive on the prevention and reduction of
environmental pollution by asbestos (87/217/EEC). This
directive does not contain systematic rules on managing
asbestos waste either; instead, it sets minimum standards for
environmental protection.
In Article 8, the directive outlines minimum standards for the
transportation and deposit of asbestos-containing waste that
46
CLR News 2/2015
Subject articles
include preventing the release of asbestos fibres and the
spilling of liquids containing asbestos. Landfills need to be
licensed to accept asbestos-containing waste and such waste
must be treated, packaged or covered, to prevent the release
of asbestos particles into the environment. Some parts of the
directive are no longer relevant as they deal with the
production and use of raw asbestos which is no longer
permitted in the EU.
Finally, the Directive on the protection of workers from the
risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (2009/148/EC)
provides relevant legislation for the protection of workers.
However, asbestos-containing waste is not always identified
as such, increasing the risk for workers in the waste sector of
contracting asbestos-related diseases.
As this overview illustrates, EU legislation on asbestos waste is
indicative at best, and concrete proposals for action
responding to the European Parliament resolution or the
EESC opinion should take account of the capacities for
asbestos waste disposal at national level, or, if this is
insufficient, include relevant measures to increase the
capacity for a save disposal of asbestos-containing waste.
Final remark
Over the last four years the campaign has changed its
character. Unlike a traditional campaign with a core topic and
some very specific demands, a kind of summit and mostly a
defined end, the asbestos campaign has become a permanent
core activity of the EFBWW and will also be part of its next
action programme, covering the period 2016 to 2019. The
goal to start removal action at various levels - national, local
or regional, sectoral - influencing EU policies in the different
policy areas has become a core topic of the campaign. With
the perspective of an inter-service Committee within the
European Commission or with the involvement of
stakeholders, new possibilities to reach a consistent EU policy
on asbestos are appearing.
CLR News 2/2015
47
Reports
Susanne Wixforth,
Vienna Chamber
of Labour;
susanne.wixforth
@akwien.at
Social considerations in Public Procurement A political choice!
The new EU-Public Procurement Directive (2014/24/EU) has to
be implemented into national law by April 2016. How should
this be done from a trade union point of view? This was the
topic of the conference on 28 and 29 May 2015 in Frankfurt
chaired by Dietmar Schäfers, deputy president of the German
Trade Union of Building Workers (Industriegewerkschaft
Bauen-Agrar-Umwelt). A very lively discussion developed on
the basis of the manual with the provocative title ‘An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ drafted on behalf of
the European Federation of Building and Woodworkers with
a view to giving concrete guidance to trade unions. The
manual will be available by the end of September 2015.
Besides a brief introduction on the new opportunities for
inclusion of occupational, health, safety and vocational
training issues offered by the Directive and the latest
developments of the ECJ jurisdiction, the manual contains
more than 80 national best practice examples. They concern
ten subject matters which were pinpointed to be of crucial
interest for trade unions:
 Preventive measures to avoid the circumvention of public
procurement procedures
 Combatting social dumping practices
 Transparency measures for sub-contracting chains
 Strengthening of main contractors´ liability
 Most economically advantageous price versus lowest price
 Social considerations
 Exclusion grounds
 Control and enforcement
 Role of trade unions
 Outsourcing of workers
At the conference, panels composed of political, trade union
and EU-Commission representatives were succeeded by
48
CLR News 2/2015
Reports
presentations of specific best practice examples. Renowatt, a
Belgian initiative, dealt with the possibilities of considering
quality criteria as for example apprenticeship or inclusion of
elderly workers in less developed regions of Belgium. Vienna
Lines, an Austrian contracting authority, explained its control
methods in order to know who works on which construction
site and to prevent social dumping by subcontractors. Finally,
the trade union Unite (GB) commented on how occupational,
health and safety as well as vocational training issues can be
put into practice by the involvement of trade unions in the
pre- and post-contractual phase of a public procurement
project.
The EU Commission´s representative underlined that the work
at EU level is deemed as done and that it is now up to the
member states to make the best of it. This opinion was
rejected by the political representatives on the panel (trade
unionists from GB, Germany, MEP from Austria, members of
ministerial cabinets). As long as the EC Commission puts
internal market doctrine above social considerations, the EU
project has to be considered incomplete and might prove to
be a failure if income disparity continues to grow at the
current pace.
With a view to the pressure on public expenditure as well as
the ongoing financial crisis with its negative implications on
employment, the panellists underlined that public
procurement is not a purely legal affair but also of societal
importance to be shaped by political will. Public contractors
have to fulfil a pioneering role and implement the
opportunities for social considerations offered by the new EUDirective. Therefore, the conviction that the lowest price
equals the best solution has to be revised. MEAT (most
economically advantageous price) should become the
standard award criteria and, in the context of the
construction sector, comprise the limitation of the
subcontractors´ chain as well as the obligation on the main
contractor to deliver the critical tasks.
CLR News 2/2015
49
Reports
To achieve the target to make reality correspond with paper that is to say with legal - provisions, a strong monitoring
system must be established including cross-border
cooperation. For the time being, nearly all actors involved
hold the cooperation between the different institutions
involved as highly problematic and unsatisfactory.
Awareness of the posted workers concerned is also low: the
wage below the collectively agreed minimum wage in the
host country is often much higher than the regular wage in
their respective home countries. Therefore, workers often do
not consider themselves victims of wage dumping: ‘There is a
queue in Romania to come to Italy. Posted workers have no
intention to cause trouble either to their employer or to their
Italian client’.
This fact explains why in many countries the effective impact
of rules is seriously hampered because it is up to the
individual worker to initiate proceedings in case of abuse of
workers´ rights in subcontracting chains. Within this context,
the introduction and strengthening of the client contractor´s
liability turned out to be an important legal issue, which is
solved in very different ways in the member states.
The main message of the conference for the participating
trade unions to bring home was that public procurement is a
means to promote fairer working conditions by
 Stipulating strong exclusion grounds;
 Limiting the subcontracting chain and excluding
employment agencies;
 Providing efficient control including trade unions as
partner at all procedural levels.
A stony road lies ahead of trade unions, but as the best
practice examples show: A change is possible!
50
CLR News 2/2015
Reviews
‘Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction
workers using structural equation modelling’, HeeChang Seoa, Yoon-Sun Leeb, Jae-Jun Kima, Nam-Yong Jeea,
Safety Science, Vol. 77/2015, Pp. 160–168
Jan Cremers,
j.m.b.cremers@uvt.nl
The construction industry in Korea reports the highest
frequency of industrial accidents, mostly among temporary
workers. Domestic and international disaster-related reports
indicate that temporary workers have high risk associated
with working environments as a major cause of accidents. The
authors, all from the Hanyang University, analysed the
relationships between the individual and organisational
factors that affect temporary workers’ safety behaviours
using the structural equation modelling (SEM) to estimate
simultaneously the cause-and-effect relationships between
many independent variables and dependent variables. Based
on a survey among temporary construction workers, the
following results were obtained: First, personal characteristics
had a partial effect on job stress and a direct effect on safety
culture. Second, personal characteristics and job stress had a
direct effect on self-perceived fatigue. Third, personal
characteristics and safety culture had a direct effect on safety
climate, and personal characteristics had an indirect effect.
Finally, personal characteristics had no direct effect on safety
behaviour, but did have indirect effects. Job stress had both a
direct and indirect effect. Safety culture had no direct effect,
but did have an indirect effect. In addition, safety climate had
a significant direct effect.
The authors conclude that preventing construction disasters
can be achieved via analysis of safety behaviour factors. Their
study provides theoretical foundations for integrated
relevance of both direct and indirect effects of variables via
structural models on safety behaviour of temporary
construction workers. The study reveals that organisational
factors and individual factors such as personal characteristics,
job stress, and self-perceived fatigue affect safety behaviour
in a statistically meaningful manner. The authors believe that,
CLR News 2/2015
51
Reviews
since this study targeted unspecified temporary construction
workers throughout Korea, generalisation from this
population is limited in creating safety behaviour models for
other construction occupational classifications. Nevertheless,
the conclusion that a (good or bad) safety climate has a
significant direct effect is clearly in line with findings in other
studies.
Jan Cremers,
j.m.b.cremers@uvt.nl
‘Occupational health and safety of temporary and
agency workers’, Benjam in Hopkins , Univ ers ity of
Leicester, Economic and Industrial Democracy’, 2015, pp.1-20.
The author investigated the workplace experiences of
different types of precarious workers related to occupational
health and safety (OHS), in particular of those who are
directly-employed temporary workers and those who are
engaged through an agency. The majority of studies into the
occupational health and safety of precarious workers have
found that these workers have poorer OHS outcomes. By
using an ethnographically informed qualitative approach,
Hopkins investigates the workplace experiences of workers
(in the food manufacturing industry) undertaking the same
tasks but working on different contractual statuses. He finds
cultural practices that lead to worsened OHS experiences for
those who are engaged through an agency. These
experiences include inadequate safety training, poor quality
personal protective equipment and a lack of clarity of
supervisory roles.
Hopkins found little difference in the experiences of
permanent and temporary workers who were directly
employed by the case study companies. Where significant
differences do occur is when agency workers are present. He
notes that organisational responsibilities at even a very basic
level, particularly around safety, may become unclear in
situations where the recruitment of labour is externalised
and a clearly defined employer–employee relationship
52
CLR News 2/2015
Reviews
becomes difficult to uphold. Thus, ‘the lines of responsibility
for these workers are growing increasingly blurred’ (p. 16).
Adding to this problem is the heterogeneity of this workforce,
particularly when considering migrant workers. Moreover,
lower levels of English language skills may have an effect on
workplace OHS if migrants cannot understand instructions
and training related to their safety. He signals a risk-denying
culture, not just one of risk-blindness. The user undertaking
gives these workers a shorter induction, or they were
completely excluded from instructions. The culture of on-time
running and delivery was the key priority.
According to Hopkins it is of crucial importance for policy
makers to make an end to the confusion in responsibility at a
workplace level. The responsibility for a decent OHS-policy
must be clarified and agency workers should receive the
induction, equipment, training and supervision they require
to ensure their safety in the workplace. Time to act, not to
withdraw!
CLR News 2/2015
53
Editor
Jan Cremers
Phone: +31/20/5257216
Or +31/6/53 43 86 79
clr@mjcpro.nl
Review editor
Jörn Janssen
Phone: +44/207/7007821
joern.janssen@btinternet.com
Layout and Production
Frank Leus
Phone: +32/2/2271041
fleus@efbh.be
Contact and Orders
CLR-News
c/o Frank Leus
EFBWW
Rue de l’hôpital 31, (boîte1)
B - 1000 Brussels
Phone: +32/2/2271040
Fax: +32/2/2198228
CLR News 2/2015 ISSN 1997-1745