Employee Health and Safety: Complacency

Employee Health and Safety: Complacency

In the business world today, the focus has increasingly been on employee well-being. The reason for this is the changing view of the employee as a person with needs rather than only an automaton to complete a certain job within a certain time frame, so that the manager can make a profit. This view also recognizes that happy workers would be more productive and ultimately more profitable for the company as a whole. Job satisfaction provides an employee with a sense of well-being, which in turn translates into greater pride in the job being done and hence higher quality in the performance of that job. Furthermore, a greater sense of well-being also leads to lower stress levels and fewer worker hours being lost due to stress-related illness. This however does not appear to correlate with the predominant workplace situation today. Indeed, as will be shown, many workers place what they perceive as an obligation towards their employer above their own well-being. The focus of this study is to determine the reasons for this.

In concomitance with the understanding that workers need to be well in order to work well, several factors have been introduced especially during the latter half of the 20th century to make the workplace more pleasant for the employee. Elements such as ergonomics, more reasonable work hours and incentives in terms of raises and bonuses have become commonplace in businesses around the world. One of the most important elements to ensure worker satisfaction and retention is the implementation of health and safety standards.

However, in addition to the above-mentioned hypothesis that workers tend to disregard their own health and safety for the sake of their work duties, it is also interesting to note that many incidents of excessively unhealthy conditions in terms of both psychological and physical danger are still reported. Surely the 21st century is an age during which employees are entitled to more than the drive to make money in the workplace. Surely, as already mentioned, workers have rights. But indeed, the very drive to earn a salary tend to drive workers towards substantially unsafe practices such as a disregard for their own safety and health at the workplace. To specifically address this issue, the research proposed will focus on three specific work areas that are notorious for their unsafe conditions and frequent lack of adequate safety standards.

The first of these is the office environment, in which a drive to complete a large workload within unrealistic time frames leads to stress. The complication here is that the manifestations of work-related psychological stress are often difficult to identify in a timely and targeted fashion. The second work area is the construction industry. Here also, time constraints motivate workers to not take the necessary precautions for their own health and safety in favor of completing the required work within a required time frame. The problem here is not as much a lack of health and safety standards, as the fact that time simply does not allow their implementation. Finally, the cockle picking industry is addressed. This industry is notorious not only for its lack of safety standards, but also for its highly dangerous nature. Gangmasters are driven by the need to make profits. Workers are then often exploited as a result of their ignorance regarding the law, their rights, and also their obligations with regard to their own health and safety.

The above areas will be addressed in order to estimate the exact reasons for employees' disregard of health and safety standards, as well as the disregard for their own individual well-being in favor of the work to be completed. Conclusions and recommendations will focus both the issues identified and the possible mitigation of the problem through recommended actions.

The disregard for health and safety for the sake of deadlines is a very disturbing trend indeed in today's workplace. Having progressed as far as we have in terms of human rights and worker satisfaction, it is unacceptable that the workplace today should be unsafe in any way, and that employers should allow this to be the case.

The study document is presented as follows:

Chapter 1: Study Design and Methodology entails an introduction to the workplace areas addressed, and hypotheses relating to workers. These hypotheses address health and safety issues in each different type of workplace. The Chapter also describes the objectives of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Study includes a survey of the literature on health and safety issues in order to substantiate and/or justify the hypotheses formulated.

Chapter 3: Data collection and analysis: The practical component of the study includes questionnaires. The responses are included by means of tables. Employees, Managers, and Health & Safety officials were provided with a list of questions that relate to workplace conditions. Questions are based upon the hypotheses identified and verified in the first two chapters of the research document.

Chapter 4 focuses on a discussion of the data gathered and analyzed in Chapter 3, comparing the practical findings with theoretical hypotheses and literature.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and recommendations are made towards improving workplace health and safety problems discussed in Chapter 1, and encouraging workers and employers to take responsibility for these issues in their workplace.

1. Study Design and Methodology

Health and safety measures have become one of the most important facets of the business world today. Human resources have enjoyed increasing importance as the focus of studies in human well-being and work satisfaction. Indeed, studies have shown how an increase in worker satisfaction ultimately results in an increase in profit for the manager. No longer are workers forced to labor under inhuman conditions. Instead, agencies such as the Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (2007) and the Health & Safety Executive (2007) work for employee safety, health, satisfaction and empowerment. As such, employees are empowered to take control of their work environment, whereas in the past the work environment and manager were often the controlling factors.

However, it has also often been observed how the workplace even today comprises certain hazards for the employee in terms not only of physical, but also of psychological dangers. The subject of this study focuses on these dangers, and how individuals are often inclined to take the risk of these factors to do the work required rather than making their own health safety a priority. This then results in illness, injury, or even death. To investigate the reasons for this tendency, three workplace environments notorious for their hazards to individual health and safety, are considered. These include stress in the office environment, potentially unsafe actions in the construction environment, and physical danger in the beach environment, and specifically in the cockle picking industry. In considering these three environments, the reasons for an individual's failure to place health and safety requirements before workplace requirements are to be determined.

The first step of the study is to hypothesize the various factors involved for individuals who appear to place the importance of work over their own health and safety. A number of hypothetical reasons are drawn up for this purpose. These are divided according to their apparent relevance to the workplace environments to be investigated.

In the office environment, the following hypotheses appear to have the highest relevance in terms of the stress factor:

Individuals may be overloaded with an unreasonable amount of work. The directive of such an individual is to finish the work instead of considering his or her own safety and stress levels. The office worker is generally well informed regarding health and safety standards, but may ignore this under the pressure of finishing the work according to a deadline, for example.

It is possible that office workers are bullied into an unreasonable amount of work that should rightfully be handled by a greater number of employees, or that they are placed under unrealistic time constraints.

If they were introduced to the HS&E department, it is possible that office workers are so involved in attempting to please their superiors and prove their value to the company, that they overlook the need to contact this department with health and safety questions. It is also possible that they are not informed of the exact service of this department, or their rights in this regard.

In the construction environment, the following appear to be relevant:

The above issues of time constraints and bullying play a role in constructions workers potentially disregarding health and safety regulations in favor of faster work completion. This results not only in individual health hazards, but also in physical safety hazards for the entire workforce in the vicinity of the construction project, and for the public using the finished product. The pressure of time and quality factors often results in individuals who do not take the necessary precautions to ensure their own and others' safety.

Construction workers, depending upon the level of work and contract under which they are employed, may lack the in-depth legal knowledge that office workers may be aware of. This results in a lack of knowledge regarding safety regulations and the requirements of the employer to provide these regulations for the safety of workers. Similarly, employers may take advantage of this lack and not inform workers of their right to knowledge of the company's policies and procedures regarding safety features.

It is also possible that individuals, particularly those working on a temporary contract basis, are afraid to be replaced when they raise health and safety concerns. Therefore these individuals prefer to take the risk for the sake of the income generated.

In the beach environment and cockle picking industry, the following appears relevant:

The work does not require a high level of education, and therefore tends to attract workers with previously lower or no income. These individuals tend to be uninformed regarding safety standards not only as result of their lack of college or school education, but also as a result of the employer's neglect.

As in the above two environments, time constraints and bullying play a role. Workers are afraid to lose their jobs, and take the risk rather than complain about safety standards.

The likelihood that workers are fully informed regarding the nature of the company is very low, while it is much more likely that they are almost forced to accept substandard conditions. They are driven to accept by their desperation for survival, which often overrides health and safety concerns, or any attached legal issues.

Chapter 4 will analyze the data gathered, while Chapter 5 will include the conclusions regarding the hypotheses and questions described in Chapter 1. Recommendations will also be made in terms of the findings for workplace safety regulations.

Aims and Objectives of the study

The objectives of the study relates to its purpose. There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the recognition of health and safety as highly important workplace features and its practical application, as described via the above hypotheses. What is particularly intriguing in this regard is the fact that not only managers have motives for ignoring health and safety standards, but that individual workers also fail to take responsibility for their own well-being. The objective of this study is to finding the reasons for this tendency and making suggestions to curb it.

Surely, in our enlightened times, individuals should be focused upon their own well-being as conducive to performing better in the workplace, providing their superiors with a better image, and concomitantly providing the company's clients with better services. This is not only internally important in terms of the workplace, but also externally in terms of public image. A company that is widely known for its high safety standards is generally regarded in a more favorable light than one without them.

The main aim of this study is therefore to, in finding answers to health and safety questions and concerns, also to find ways to balance the need for speedy and voluminous work with the well-being that will ensure the quality of such work. In focusing on the three workplace areas mentioned above, the study also aims to benefit specific areas of work that are notorious for their lack of health and safety. The aim is then not only to find justifications for individual actions, as it were, but to curb the self-destructive tendencies of such individuals by empowering them with knowledge.

In this, the researcher aims for a deeper understanding of the underlying factors relating to a lack of safety awareness by employees. In developing such an understanding, the research will further aim to empower individuals for greater well-being both in their work and general lives. In short, the objective is to gain a deeper understanding of the issues relating to individual health and safety in the workplace, motivations for ignoring these, and find methods to curb the apparent self-destructive nature of workers placing the job ahead of their own needs.

2. Literature Survey

The literature suggests that stress particularly is a widely recognized health hazard for workers worldwide (Skews, 2006) the reason for this is that stress is not only a workplace phenomenon, but is also a significant factor in other areas of life, such as personal and family affairs. It is furthermore a very important factor because it is so difficult to recognize in its early stages. Once stress is found to be a hazard, it is often too late to act preventatively.

Another factor playing a significant role in health and safety is the tension between profit and worker health and safety. The article by Skews (2003) for example focuses on the rising costs to companies for implementing the required health and safety regulations and policies. The problem is particularly significant for small or emerging companies, as the drive towards initial profit often enjoys precedence over considerations of worker safety. In such cases, managers tend to exploit workers' ignorance an bully them into providing the maximum amount of output, without regard for health and safety needs.

Another issue prominently arising in the literature is the fact that the responsibility for health and safety lies not only with managers, but also with workers themselves. According to the Health and Safety Executive (2007), for example, it is the responsibility of workers to monitor their own health and safety needs, discuss these with management, and even go so far as reporting the failure of management to meet these requirements to the appropriate authorities. Documentation therefore supports the empowering function of providing employees with the correct information regarding their rights and responsibilities in the workplace.

The literature furthermore appears to support the ideal of a mutually beneficial contract between employers and employees. It is ultimately beneficial for employers to have adequate health and safety standards in place. Workers will experience a sense of well-being, which will serve as a basis for providing consistent quality in their work. This quality in turn results in returning customers and greater profits. Workers who empower themselves with adequate knowledge regarding the company and its policies before beginning work benefit by experiencing greater satisfaction in their work and reducing their stress levels both at work and in their personal lives.

Problems however arise with issues such as the initial investment into adequate health and safety standards. Startup and small companies may for example not have the funding available to put such standards in place, while concomitantly being driven by the need to make adequate initial profits. Concomitant with this, workers are often kept in the dark regarding their rights in terms of health and safety, particularly in industries that attract the lower-income sector of society. Employers in such cases tend to exploit workers' fear of losing their job and income.

The role of Industry

Office Environments

The Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (TSSA, 1996-2008) states that the office environment does not contain the physical hazards of workplaces such as the construction and fishing industries. The tendency is therefore to overlook entirely the necessity of safety precautions within the office environment. In order to curb this trend, the TSSA web site provides examples of possible office hazards that can be both physical and psychological. Indeed, the site states that 2000 office workers are absent for more than three days per year as the result of accidents at the workplace. Furthermore, stress plays a large role in the office environment, and contributes to the substantial hazards that office workers often face.

Possible physical risks, according to TSSA, include noise, hazardous substances, manual handling, computer or other display screens, machinery, and environments in which personal protective equipment is needed. Manual handling refers to cases where office equipment, furniture, or packages need to be moved. If these items are particularly heavy, it is vital that office workers be informed of the correct procedures for handling such items. Chemical hazards refer to cleaning substances, inks and toners, and could entail a significant risk for workers. Guidelines to use these should be clearly indicated and brought to workers' attention. Electrical cables and sockets could also entail hazards if not used correctly. Office workers should also be fully trained in using fire extinguishing equipment. Noise should be kept at an acceptable level, while temperature and lighting should be at optimal comfort levels.

A very important element of worker safety is rest periods. Office workers generally spend the majority of their time in a sitting position. In addition to ensuring that the ergonomics of the office space are at optimal levels, workers also need to be encouraged to take regular breaks from their work stations. This is an area where workers can easily neglect their own health and safety simply because they are so caught up in their duties that they tend to forget. At optimal levels, office workers should take hourly breaks from their stations.

According to the TSSA Web site, there is no specific legislation that governs office environment hazards such as stress, bullying and violence. Sexual harassment is however governed by certain legislation and can be prosecuted further. The other factors are however risks that need to be covered in the workplace policy. Here workers need to take particular note of their own health and safety, their rights and their responsibilities. In these factors, unions and Health and Safety professionals are particularly important.

Stress is a factor that is easily ignored, mostly because it is so difficult to detect in its early stages. It is however also one of the most significant hazards in the office environment. This could work concomitantly with bullying and psychological violence in terrorizing employees into illness and regular incapacity for work. Working conditions could then become intolerable and the company loses many costly work hours as a result of unhappy employees. The reason why these factors could be ignored is not only a lack of legislation, but also a lack of awareness. Employees may not be aware of the specific risk factors entailed in their work, and therefore might not recognize the warning signs when they appear. As mentioned, loyalty to the company and its workload could also result in a disproportionate demand to finish required work in an unrealistic amount of time.

One very significant factor in terms of ignoring health and safety in the office is the fear of being replaced. Indeed, the TSSA Web site states that this is not an unsubstantiated fear. Indeed, many workers are fired for refusing to work under unsafe conditions. The main reason for this is legislation. According to TSSA, the penalty for firing a worker for raising safety concerns is very low in the UK, to the extent that employers find it cheaper to simply fire the disgruntled employee than make the required improvements. While companies with unions are somewhat easier to work with, the fact is also that many such companies simply disregard the safety and health of their employees.

All three hypotheses for office workers appear to be substantiated by the literature. An overload of work may cause disregard for safety standards such as taking breaks from the computer. Employers under pressure to deliver their quota, could in turn bully their workers into completing work under extremely stressful conditions. It is also possible that office workers are not make fully aware of their rights and obligations towards the company that they ignore their own safety in favor of everything else. Finally, as noted above, office workers may fear termination if they refuse to work under hazardous conditions or complain about their circumstances to officials.

Construction

Companies that provide tangible goods and services are particularly vulnerable to losses of professional reputation relating to health and safety or the lack thereof. The construction profession can be included in this. If a worker is for example obliged to take shortcuts for the sake of completing a job within a certain time frame, this may result in significant dangers to the individual worker, his or her colleagues, as well as the public who will eventually make use of the product delivered. Inadequate time to take the necessary safety precautions may on the other hand provide the company with the reputation of speed.

According to an article on the HSE Web site, the construction industry's 2005/2006 figures report the second highest rate of self-reported work-related illnesses: 3,800 cases per 100,000 employees were reported in this regard. This indicates that the physical hazard of the industry is high for workers. Such illnesses could also be stress related, although the web site also mentions that the levels of stress for the industry are fairly low as compared to other types of workplace. A further interesting statistic in this regard is that construction workers tend to have a high mortality rate, which is unrelated to social class.

According to Howard (2008), the construction industry in the UK leaves something to be desired in terms of health and safety standards. This is indicated by the increase of the death rate for the industry due to work-related accidents. During 2006, the author reports that there was an increase of 28% of such fatalities over the previous year. In combination, 2006 and 2007 proved to have the highest fatalities for the construction industry in five years.

One reason the HSE gives for this is the increase in actual construction work done - it has more than doubled over the last years. Statistically, the suggestion is that the increased number of fatalities are not in effect an increase in the percentage of same. This does not however serve as an adequate excuse for the apparent lack of health and safety that would prevent the rise in the rate of deaths for the industry. In addition to the statistical increase of workers, the author cites Barcley Sumner in the assertion that there is also an increased pressure on workers in terms of time, and also on employers in terms of worker numbers. Because of time pressures, employers are obliged to hire additional workers on short notice. This often results in workers with less training and a concomitant rise in accidents.

Another problem that the author addresses is the changing nature of the workforce in construction, and the concomitant culture and imperatives towards health and safety. According to Howard, the trend towards a more casual and fragmented workforce has resulted in fewer connections between the workforce and the employer. The problem is that the employer no longer knows his or her workforce, and hence the directive towards health and safety is absent. Furthermore, the increase of construction companies also means that providing enough safety reps to meet the demand of each company. At the basis of the problem is then a concomitance of factors: employers are under pressure to complete work in a constrained time span; this results in an increase of unknown workers without monitoring their training, and a lack of concern for safety measures in favor of completing the work.

Migrant workers contribute to the above problems. These workers make themselves available for construction work either through employment agencies or even gangmasters. In addition to their lack of training, these workers also often struggle with language issues, making it difficult to follow specific instructions at the workplace.

In terms of employer responsibility, Howard cites Sumner again in holding that much stricter legislation is required in order to force employers to take responsibility for the issue. The existing voluntary code is simply not adequate, particularly in a rapidly growing industry such as construction. Furthermore, legislation needs to be enforced by inspection. Employer responsibility in construction is a very important issue, as 70% of serious accidents are reported to be the result of management failure.

To conclude his article, Howard cites Olav Lawrence on health and safety in construction. Lawrence cites unsafe working conditions that are all too often witnessed, including scaffolding without guardrails and handling heavy equipment without barriers to break their possible fall from heights. Such practices places employees and the public at risk. While large companies do have safety measures and experts in place, there are a large amount of smaller companies that do not. Lawrence asserts that this is an area that could benefit from much more attention.

In terms of the hypotheses mentioned earlier, time constraints are a very large factor in ignoring health and safety measures in construction. This relates to both managers and employees. Managers are under pressure for speed, which results in hiring more untrained workers, who often do not take responsibility for their own health and safety. The reasons for this include that they may be migrant workers and do not understand English beyond a very basic level, or more likely that they simply are not informed of their rights and responsibilities. The first two hypotheses are therefore substantiated by the literature, with the second relating to the level of worker understanding. The third hypothesis relates to workers' fear of being replaced if they raise concerns.

This appears not to be a very prominent issue in the construction business.

Cockle Picking

The discrepancy between the general health and safety standards accepted in the business world and the actual inadequacies experienced by workers need to be addressed with some urgency. A number of professional factors are involved in terms of worker health and safety. In addition to the above-mentioned fact that happy, healthy workers provide quality services, other relevant factors include professional and company reputation, as well as worker empowerment, rights and obligations.

In terms of company reputation, it is beneficial for a company to have adequate safety standards in place. Apart from the fact that such a company's goods and services will be of higher quality, it will also have the reputation of caring for more than just its bottom line. An example that rather poignantly demonstrates this relates to the cockle picking industry. According to a news release by Paul Marston (2006), a Morecambe Bay gangmaster was sentenced to 14 years in prison after the death of 23 Chinese cockle pickers. Clearly, the necessary health and safety standards were not in place. According to the article, the deaths could have been prevented. Such events have devastating effects not only on the public perception, but also on the professional reputation of a company and even by association on the reputation of the industry as a whole. The gangmaster in question and his company are likely to suffer extreme harm to their professional reputation, and a substantial loss of profits.

According to Pai (2006), the cockle picking industry is notorious for its low safety standards. The reasons for this are not only a lack of adequate legislation or the direct supervisors of workers, but also the integrated network of top bosses as well as the workers themselves. According to the Guardian article by Pai, workers are continuing to sell their services and to work under the same conditions as those causing the deaths of the 23 pickers at Morecambe Bay. This continues despite the knowledge of the event and the new legislation in the picking industry.

The author cites Lin Guo, a survivor of the Morecambe Bay incident, as asserting that workers were not informed of safety measures and their responsibilities to ensure their own safety. As such, they were not provided with the often specialized knowledge needed in terms of tides, local conditions, and what to do in case of danger. Furthermore, workers were also not provided with safety equipment. Instead, they were left to their own devices and "common sense."

In terms of time constraints and safety, Pai cites Lin Liangren, who blames the pressure that English suppliers place on the cockling industry to produce for the demand of their international clients. Such pressure places great pressure to produce more in less time.

All three hypotheses relating to the cockle picking environment appear to be substantiated by the literature: the fact that the workers died indicates that they were not fully informed regarding their rights to health and safety. Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that adequate health and safety measures were not in place, as the article indicates that the deaths could have been prevented by these. Finally, workers appear to have accepted very low health and safety standards for the sake of employment.

In addition, the problem relates to legal issues: Gangmasters exploit illegal immigrants by providing them with low-paying work opportunities in order to make more profits. A BBC report (Casciani, 2005) on the same incident relates to the legislative consequences of the deaths. The British Government has for example implemented a permit system to discourage the illegal employment and endangering of workers. Furthermore, Morecambe Bay itself now features its own policing force to monitor cockle fishing practices and report illegal activities. However, Casciani indicates that much more is needed, as the industry is indicative only of a much larger problem over the food industry as a whole, and concerning illegal immigration as a problem in the UK. Indeed, some hold that permit legislation will only drive illegals already in the country further underground and thus place them at even greater risk of unscrupulous exploitation.

In terms of small companies who experience the pressure of the need for initial profits, workers suffer from stress and overwork, and hence cannot deliver the quality necessary for future profits. Here also professional reputation will suffer and hence result in an ultimate loss of profit and potentially the failure of the business.

For individual workers in the 20th century, this means that they are empowered not only with rights, but also with obligations (Health and Safety Executive, 2007). On a personal level, workers who do not report inadequacies in health and safety at their workplace, run the potential danger of indirectly causing injury or even death not only to themselves, but also to their colleagues. On a professional level, workers are furnished with a right to safety and health in the workplace. Managers are obliged to provide these. When a lack is experienced, workers are legally not only entitled, but obliged, to report the shortcoming. It is therefore clear that all persons at all levels of work need to take various types of responsibility for their own and others' health and safety. The literature substantiates this.

Health and Safety: Employer Responsibility

According to the HSE Web site (2008), employers are to take responsibility for ensuring health and safety for their employees and also for other professionals or members of the public that might be affected by their work. The site suggests ten necessary steps to ensure this. It is emphasized that the basic steps outlined are not a matter of choice, but of obligation by law. Firstly, new businesses need to be registered with the Health and Safety Executive or the local authority. This protects both the business and the workers in case of injury or death. This is also a function of the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance, which protects both the employer and employee from unforeseen financial ramifications when accidents occur. The third point is very important, and relates to the role of advisers and consultants when implementing health and safety measures at the workplace. The site suggests finding a competent person for advise, but also states that this does not need to be an external consultant. The requirement is only that the person is well versed in the legal and practical issues of health and safety.

The fourth step is to implement a health and safety policy. All persons at the workplace need to be aware of the contents of such a policy. Periodic risk assessments need to form the basis of the health and safety policy. Employers should implement policies according to the findings of the risk assessments.

On a basic level, the ergonomics and facilities at the workplace need to be implemented for optimal worker comfort. This includes facilities such as toilets, washing facilities and drinking water. The temperature and noise levels in an office environment for example also need to be taken into consideration for this. Regular breaks from strenuous or monotonous work should also be encouraged to promote the general health and well-being of workers.

Workers should at all times be aware of their rights and responsibilities regarding health and safety. Providing this information free of charge is the responsibility of the employer. Open communication channels should be established between employers and management in the workplace. Employers should consult their workers on a regular basis to establish whether anything more should be done to promote health and safety at the workplace. Concomitantly, workers should also feel confident to raise issues with their employers without fear of losing their work or position in the company.

A health and safety law poster should be displayed, or leaflets provided to inform workers on legislation and their rights regarding health and safety at their workplace. Furthermore, employers should also take the responsibility of reporting any work-related health and safety problems in order to mitigate these for the future. Reporting such incidents promotes confidence that the employer takes to heart the health and safety of his or her workers. Concomitantly, workers will feel valued and be inspired to deliver their best work.

Health and Safety: Employee Responsibility

It is also suggested in the literature that employees should take responsibility for their own health and safety at the workplace. While there is no excuse for neglecting the duty of informing employees of their rights and responsibilities, employees are also not to disregard the information that they do receive.

According to Bart Becht (2004), nobody at the workplace can disregard health and safety, including their own. As such, workers are to take responsibility by being aware of their company's health and safety policy and its contents. The employee is then also to implement these in his or her day-to-day work life. The employer cannot for example be expected to remind office workers to take their hourly breaks. The employer is responsible for training and awareness. Once these have been ensured, it is the responsibility of the employee to implement the necessary measures for him- or herself.

Employees should also be aware that their actions relating to health and safety could affect others. Employees should always take this into consideration and ensure that those affected are aware of the risks and responsibilities that they should implement. Site visitors for example should be made aware of the necessary safety measures to avoid unnecessary injury.

It is also the responsibility of the employee to cooperate with the employer and supervisors in terms of health and safety. Employees should ensure that they have all the necessary information to ensure their own health and safety in the workplace.

Finally, employees are obliged to report health and safety concerns to the relevant official, according to the specific policy at the company. Failure to do this could result in risk for the employee and for others at the workplace. It has been seen above however that workers are discouraged from such reporting by the risk of losing their jobs. While legislation is in place, this has little effect on managers who do not take health and safety to heart to as great an extent as their profit margins.

Health and Safety Solutions

While there is no shortage of health and safety professionals, companies, and literature, little is offered by way of solutions to the practical problems described above. The main problems relate to the fear of employees to take the necessary responsibility for their own health and safety by raising concerns; migrant workers that result in a dynamic, untrained, and unsafe work environment, particularly in dangerous work such as construction; and illegal activities leading to the death of workers such as those in the cockle fishing industry.

The existing literature tends to focus on the responsibilities allocated to workers, employees and supervisors. Professionals such as Ellis Whittam (2004-2008) and OCCHNET (2007) offer their services with guarantees of increased compliance by both workers and employers. They furthermore make clients aware of the exact legal issues involved and responsibilities to be allocated within the company.

The problem is however that these companies cannot force their services upon unwilling companies. The bottom line remains that company owners need to take the initial responsibility of implementing health and safety policies for their workers, and using professionals to help them do this. The fact remains that some supervisors and employers are simply not very concerned with the health and safety of their workers, and hence disregard any legislation to this effect. It is of course impossible to monitor every single company in the UK on a continuous basis to ensure their compliance. As long as companies do not view the benefits of health and safety measures as outweighing their costs, there will always be a lack of such measures, and more often than not workers pay the price either by ignorance, by loyalty to the company, or by fear.

3. Data Collection and Analysis

Research Instruments

The main research instruments were questionnaires aimed at three sectors of the workplace, focusing on employees, employers, and Health and Safety professionals. The initial method was to send these out to the relevant recipients. Employees and managers targeted were those who have consulted with their local HS&E Advisor or Occupational Health Advisor during the last three years. The nature of the study was explained, and respondents were asked to complete the enclosed questionnaire. This was followed by a telephone call to encourage those who had not responded to complete the questionnaire during the conversation.

The questionnaires and response rates are presented as tables, followed by an analysis of the responses in each case. The aim of the questions were to determine the general attitude in the workplace to issues of health and safety. The questions were also designed to determine whether employees, employers and health and safety professionals felt that the amount of work required on a daily basis was fairly distributed and contributed to health and safety in the workplace. Finally, the questions are meant to indicate the importance of health and safety as these relate to workload and deadline issues.

The number of employees taking part in the study was 214, with 63 managers responding to questionnaires, while 6 Health and Safety professionals and their companies were questioned regarding the relevant issues. Questions were designed to elicit 'yes' or 'no' responses in order to simplify analysis.

Limitations of Data

It should be noted that a significant limitation of the study is that respondents were not always honest in their answers. The responses are however taken at face value as submitted and analyzed as valuable discourse rather than facts set in stone. As such, the responses are meant as an initial indication of the need for further study, as one report is hardly adequate as a global study of the health and safety situation.

A further limitation of the study is scope. Only a representative sample of the target population groups could be included in the study, again with the hope that it will inspire further investigation into this important issue. Health and safety are increasingly important issues in the workplace, and continuous investigation is necessary to ensure that adequate measures are implemented to ensure not only the highest possible worker satisfaction and safety, but also the highest possible profit that would be the result.

A final limitation relates to the questionnaires themselves. The responses are limited to "yes" and "no." This precludes the possibility of further elaboration or suggestions for remedies from any of the three population groups investigated. Again, this also indicates the preliminary, basic nature of this study project. It is neither national in scope, nor all-inclusive in terms of population. Rather, in being limited in the above ways, the study provides a basic indication of problem areas. These can be used as a springboard for further, more in-depth study, as already mentioned.

The first dataset analyzed is the questionnaires to employees, the second those to managers, and the third those to health and safety professionals. The questionnaires and responses are presented in the form of tables, which are briefly discussed in terms of percentages in each case. Individual analyses are followed by a comparative approach to the data, reflecting the general attitudes of employees, managers, and health and safety professionals.

Presentation of Data

Data are presented and analyzed via tables. Tables 1-3 indicate the response rate for the three different population groups.

Table 1: Employees

Employees

The questionnaire was sent to 300 office-based employees who had consulted with either their local HS&E Advisor or Occupational Health Advisor during the last 3 years.

Responses by questionnaire/phone)

No Response by questionnaire/phone)

Left the Company

Of the 300 employees, 49 provided no responses by either questionnaires or phone, while 37 were no longer available as a result of having left the company at the time of study. The response rate was therefore 71.3%, with 16.3% not responding, and 12.3% not responding as a result of leaving the company.

Table 2: Managers

Managers

The questionnaire was sent to 100 office-based managers who had consulted with either their local HS&E Advisor or Occupational Health Advisor during the last 3 years. Questions concerned the well-being of employees.

Responses by questionnaire/phone)

No Response by questionnaire/phone)

Left the Company

Of the 100 managers, the response rate was 63%, with 26% not responding and 11% having left the company at the time of study.

Table 3: H&S Professionals

H&S Professionals

The questionnaire was completed by 6 H&S Professionals.

Responses by questionnaire/phone)

No Response by questionnaire/phone)

Left the Company

The response rate of H&S professionals was 100%, with the total number of respondents amounting to 6.

The responses to questionnaires are presented in Tables 4-11.

Employee Responses

Questions to employees can be divided into three categories, as follows:

Category 1 (Question 1-7): Personal experience of work load, satisfaction and stress levels.

Category 2 (Question 8-11): Opinions and views of employer and fairness.

Category 3 (Question 12-18): Health and Safety policies and procedures.

Table 4: Personal experience of work load, satisfaction and stress levels (Question 1-7)

Question

Are you satisfied at work?

Do you feel that the amount of work you are required to do in a day is reasonable?

Would you benefit if more people were appointed to help you with your work load?

Do you think that you would do better, higher quality work if you had less to do in a given day?

Do you experience stress at work?

Do you feel that your stress level is dangerously high?

Would you say that your stress level is affecting your home life?

Of the 214 respondents, a majority are not satisfied with their work and feel that their work load is unreasonable (75% and 69% respectively). A significant majority in each case feel that they would benefit from more people appointed to help with the work load (88%), would to better work if the work load were made lighter (89%), and believe that their stress levels are dangerously high (69%). The most significant majority responded 'yes' when asked if they experience stress at work (95%), and that it affects their home life (72%). Stress is an area of work that should receive significant research attention.

Table 5: Opinions and views of employer and fairness (Question 8-11)

Question

Do you feel that your manager is fair most of the time?

Is your manager's opinion significantly important to you?

Would you take on more work to satisfy your manager?

Do you feel that you may lose your position or your work if you do not fully meet the demands of your manager?

The majority of respondents answered in the affirmative to all four question, indicating that most respondents believe that their managers are mostly fair (66%). They also hold their employers' opinion in high regard (61%) and would take more work to satisfy the respective managers (66%). These responses indicate the level of loyalty to the company, and a concomitant drive towards possibly disregarding health and safety in order to satisfy management requirements. A significant majority (89%) fear that they may lose their jobs or position in the company if not meeting all the demands of their employers, regardless of whether these are reasonable or not. This could account for the significant stress level percentage indicated by Table 4.

Table 6: Health and Safety policies and procedures (Question 12-18)

Question

Does your workplace have health and safety policy and procedures in place?

Do you think such policy and procedures are important in the workplace?

Does your manager take health and safety policy and procedures seriously?

Do you take responsibility for your own health and safety at work?

Does your employer offer training programs that teach employees about health and safety regulations during working hours?

If you feel that your working conditions are unhealthy, do you have access to unions or associations that can handle your complaints?

Would you use such entities if you had complaints?

Of the 214 respondents, 100% affirm that their workplace does have health and safety policies and procedures in place. The most significant majority of respondents feel that such procedures are important (94%), affirm that they do take responsibility for their own health and safety (94%), and that their employer offers training programs focusing on health and safety issues (95%). The majority of respondents affirm that their managers tae health and safety issues seriously (80%), and that employees have access to unions or associations to help with problems (84%). The least significant majority would use these entities for complaints (64%). This correlates with the information in Table 2, which indicates that the majority of respondents fear negative ramifications if they were to complain.

The tables above appear to correlate with two of the hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the study. Employees tend to disregard their own health and safety for the sake of loyalty to the company, or for fear of losing their jobs. Most employees appear to be aware of health and safety issues, and affirm that these are in place at work.

Employer/Manager Responses

Questions to employers can be divided into two categories, as follows:

Category 1 (Question 1-8): The relationship of employees to their employers and workload

Category 2 (Question 8-11): Health and Safety issues.

Table 7: The relationship of employees to their employers and workload (Question 1-8)

Question

Do you feel that most of your employees are satisfied in their work?

Do you believe that there is a correlation between employee satisfaction and the quality of work delivered?

Are you open to communication or complaints from your employees?

Would employees communicate with you if they experienced an unacceptable level of stress?

If employees feel overwhelmed by their workload, would you appoint more employees to help them if available?

Would an employee be in danger of losing their position or work in your area if they failed to complete work within your deadlines?

Do you feel that the health of your employees is important?

Do you feel that you are a fair manager in terms of deadline and workload?

Of the 63 respondents, 100% indicated affirmative answers to being available if employees had complaints, and believing that the health of their employees is important. The most significant majorities believe that there is a correlation between employee satisfaction and work quality (97%), and believe that they are fair in terms of deadline and workload (97%). A further significant majority responded that they would appoint more workers to help with increasing work loads (86%), and that employees would not be in danger of losing their jobs for missing deadlines (90%). A less significant majority responded that employees would communicate their stress problems to employers (68%), and that most employees are satisfied at work (78%). It is significant to compare these findings with responses by workers. The discrepancy between responses relating to fairness and communication for example appears to indicate that employers are not entirely accurate in their perception of employees and their work experiences. This also relates to communication issues and fear in the workplace.

Table 8: Health and Safety Issues (Question 9-18)

Question

Do you feel that workload and stress levels form part of health and safety?

Does your workplace have health and safety policy and procedures in place?

Do you feel that such policy and procedures can significantly improve the health and safety of employees?

Does your company offer training programs to teach your employees how to implement health and safety during their hours of work?

Do you encourage your employees to attend health and safety training during their working day?

Are your employees aware of their responsibilities regarding their own health and safety at work?

Do you have unions or departments where employees can complain if their health and safety at work is jeopardized?

Do you feel that such departments are important?

Does your company employ H&S professionals to help them improve health and safety at your workplace?

Do you feel the involvement of H&S professionals is vital for the success and implementation of health and safety policy and procedures?

For six of the questions in Table 8, 100% of respondents answered in the affirmative. These include the fact that work load and stress levels form part of health and safety; all employers have health and safety procedures in place; health and safety training is in place; unions and health and safety associations are available for employees; H&S professionals are employed; and the importance of these professionals are seen as vital for the success of health and safety. A further significant majority of respondents feel that health and safety procedures can significantly improve the health and safety of employees (95%), and that unions and other such associations are important in the workplace (97%). Less significant is the majority that encourage their employees to attend health and safety workshops (73%), despite the fact that these are viewed as important, and of least significance is the majority that believe their employees are aware of their health and safety responsibilities (54%). The last figure is very significant, as Table 6 appears to indicate that 94% of employees do take responsibility for their own health and safety. This discrepancy is worth investigating in future studies.

Health and Safety Professional Responses

Questions to Health and Safety professionals can be divided into three categories, as follows:

Category 1 (Question 1-3): The status of Health and Safety in the workplace today.

Category 2 (Question 4-7): Health and Safety clients and service providers

Category 3 (Question 8-13): The role of Health and Safety professionals.

Table 9: The status of Health and Safety in the workplace today (Question 1-3).

Question

Do you feel that the majority of companies are taking adequate measures to ensure health and safety for their employees?

Do you believe that employees are sufficiently informed regarding their rights and obligations regarding health and safety in the workplace?

Do you believe that health and safety problems are amounting to a crisis situation?

The table indicates that 100% of health and safety professionals do not believe that health and safety problems are taking on crisis status. However, 5 of the 6 respondents (83%) also do not believe that companies are taking adequate measures towards Health and Safety, or that employees are sufficiently informed of their rights and obligations in this regard.

Table 10: Health and Safety clients and service providers (Question 4-7)

Question

Have any of your clients implemented your services only after a health and safety related accident occurred?

Do you believe that you as professionals could do more to promote health and safety in organizations?

Do your services also incorporate helping employees to take their own health and safety into account?

Do you offer formal training programs that companies can use to implement their health and safety policy and procedures?

Table 10 indicates that 100% of respondents believe that they could do more to promote health and safety in organizations. Their services also incorporate a focus on employees and their concerns, and formal training programs are available to help companies implement their policies and procedures for health and safety. Four of the 6 respondents (67%) affirm that some of their clients have implemented Health and Safety services only after an accident indicated that the existing policy was not adequate. This is significant, as preventative measures could mitigate injuries and deaths from such accidents. The response here indicates that many companies only implement Health and Safety measures in retrospect, and in this way lose valuable resources in terms of funding and work hours. This area could benefit from future study.

Table 11: The role of Health and Safety professionals (Question 8-13)

Question

Do you ever investigate health and safety issues without the consent of a company's director?

Do you research health and safety statistics?

Do you believe that these are accurate?

Can health and safety statistics help your company to do its job better?

Could a company be subject to legal action if its health and safety measures are not adequate?

Do you have a vision for the future of health and safety in the workplace?

Table 11 indicates that 100% of respondents research Health and Safety statistics and have a vision for the future of Health and Safety in the workplace. All 6 respondents also indicate that legal action could result if a company's Health and Safety measures are not up to the required standard. Interestingly, the majority of respondents (67%) do not believe that the statistics mentioned in Question 9 are accurate, although 5 of the 6 (83%) respondents do believe that the statistics can help their companies perform better. Of the respondents, 67% also indicate that they investigate Health and Safety issues without the consent of the company's director. This indicates the importance of Health and Safety measures in the workplace.

The above tables indicate a number of interesting elements as they relate to Health and Safety in the workplace. Most significant is the discrepancy between employer and employee responses regarding the views of each population on the other's experience of workplace Health and Safety. Chapter 4 is a discussion of these discrepancies, along with the significance of the findings and their relation to the hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the study. Hypotheses are confirmed or discarded by the findings in both the literature review and the data, with new information added and correlated with the confirmed hypotheses.

4. Discussion and Correlation of Findings

The findings indicate a confirmation of most hypotheses formulated during the beginning of study. The hypotheses are summarized in Table 12:

Table 12: Hypotheses relating to Health and Safety standards

Industry

Hypotheses

Office

Workers are overloaded with work, but disregard this for reasons such as loyalty to the company or manager or fear of losing a position or job.

Office workers are bullied into an unreasonable amount of work by their superiors.

Workers tend to overlook the availability or necessity of Health and Safety departments for reasons such as not being informed of their rights and obligations.

Construction

1. Construction companies are under pressure to deliver more work in less time and workers disregard Health and Safety in favor of speed.

2. Workers may be uninformed regarding their Health and Safety rights and obligations.

3. Workers fear losing their jobs if they raise concerns regarding Health and Safety.

Cockle Picking

1. Workers come from a background of low income and education levels and are more likely than not uninformed regarding their health and safety.

2. Workers are afraid to lose their jobs if they raise concerns.

3. The company does not honestly disclose working conditions prior to hiring employees.

Correlation of literature with hypotheses common hypothesis in the above list is the fact that workers fear losing their jobs as a result of complaining about or reporting substandard Health and Safety measures. This is confirmed by the literature (TSSA, 1996-2008). Many workers are indeed fired for this reason, as managers see this as a cheap way out of investing in Health and Safety measures. Having an example in terms of these workers, the remaining employees are even less likely to fulfill their obligations in this regard. Their fear and need for income are therefore two important factors in remaining quiet about even significant danger.

The pressure upon construction companies is also confirmed by the literature. According to the HSE Web site (2008) and the article by Howard (2008), as discussed in the Literature section, Construction is a highly hazardous occupation. This makes it even more important that necessary Safety and Health measurements be in place. Yet statistical figures indicate that work-related illness and death rates for the industry are soaring. This therefore confirms Hypothesis 1 for the construction industry.