Commission misses its target on European Health and Safety strategy - ETUC
01 March 2007by eub2 -- last modified 01 March 2007
The communication from the European Commission on its new strategy on health and safety at work, presented on 21 February, boasts an apparently ambitious objective: a reduction of 25 % in the rate of accidents at work in the European Union. Yet it is the poorest strategy in terms of concrete initiatives proposed since the first Community action programme adopted in 1978.
Advertisement
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) recalls that accidents at work form only a limited part of the health problems caused by work. So far, the Community strategy has always focused on a broad approach which covers all health problems. The choice of a reduction in accidents at work as the central objective represents a backwards step compared to that enlarged approach. The ETUC regrets that diseases linked to work are not considered in the Commission communication. The text mentions only 'occupational illnesses'.
The occupational illnesses that appear in the statistics account for no more than a very small fraction of all the illnesses linked to work. Less than 5 % of the cases of cancer caused by work in Europe are recognised as occupational illnesses. To present the objective of a 'continuous, permanent and homogeneous reduction' in occupational illnesses does not make it possible to define a real strategy. On the contrary: it is likely that a more effective prevention policy should initially deliver a significant increase in the number of occupational illnesses recognised. Obviously, this line of thought was incompatible with the Commission's general approach, which seems to view occupational health primarily as a variable of the productivity and competitiveness of businesses.
The ETUC's view is that a prevention strategy is based upon some precise mechanisms which make it possible to drive concrete actions in the workplace. The three essential mechanisms in any prevention system are: worker representation; the factory inspectorate; and prevention services.
As far as worker representation goes, the communication turns its back on the participative approach provided by the framework directive in 1989. It completely ignores the importance of this representation. Yet practice proves that there is a very strong correlation between the existence of worker representation in the field of safety and the real performances of the prevention activities within a company.
Neither is the fate of the factory inspectorate very enviable. The Commission text perceives the factory inspectorate primarily as a network of consultants serving enterprises, and seriously underestimates the importance of control and sanctions against 'employer criminality'.
As to prevention services, the communication confines itself to a few suggestions regarding external prevention services. This approach is too limited and is at odds with the framework directive which rightly takes the view that putting internal prevention services in place it is a priority.
The Commission seems to have forgotten the Treaty, which advocates harmonisation of the workplace environment via Community directives. It focuses on the recommendations, which have been proved to be ineffective in practice, and other non-binding instruments.
If we want to drive down work-related illnesses, the ETUC considers that two areas would need to be viewed as central priorities: the prevention of musculo-skeletal disorders and the battle against chemical risks, and in particular, cancers linked to work.
These two points appeared in the 2002-2006 strategy. The blocking of the Community initiatives regarding the revision of the directive on carcinogens, the drafting of compulsory threshold values and an overall directive on musculo-skeletal disorders have represented major failures for health and safety policy in the past period.
The communication does not bode well at all. It restricts itself to a very vague phrase to the effect that 'the Commission will, starting from the consultations underway with the social partners, pursue its work regarding possible initiatives' in these fields. The Commission no longer even dares to mention the word 'directive', even though this did appear in its 2002-2006 strategy! After five years of procrastination, the ETUC would have liked the Commission to have come up with a more precise idea of the 'possible initiatives'!
The ETUC exists to speak with a single voice, on behalf of the common interests of workers, at European level. Its prime objective is to promote the European Social Model and to work for the development of a united Europe of peace and stability where working people and their families can enjoy full human and civil rights and high living standards.
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)