Government launches strategy for health and safety at work

On 20 October 2006, the government published the draft of the Spanish Strategy for Health and Safety at Work for the period 2007–2011. Work started on this strategy in February 2005 at the Social Dialogue Commission on occupational risk prevention. This commission was made up of representatives of the government, the Spanish Confederation of Employers’ Organisations (CEOE), the Spanish Confederation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (CEPYME), the General Workers’ Confederation (UGT) and the Trade Union Confederation of Workers’ Commissions (CC.OO).

Objectives and content

The strategy has two fundamental aims: first, to reduce the industrial accident rate, and second, to achieve a progressive change in attitudes towards health and safety in the workplace. It sets out to design a common framework shared by the social partners and autonomous communities, to put an end to the current dispersion of policies, such as action plans and shock plans. These policies are subject to time limitations, and lack a common rationale. The strategy intends to bring the national guidelines into line with the Community strategy on health and safety at work covering both the 2002–2006 period and in particular the 2007–2012 period.

The draft is divided into two main sections: objectives concerning occupational risk prevention in companies, and objectives concerning public policies.

The first section states that the involvement of companies – particularly small ones –will be encouraged through direct grants and tax incentives. A reduction in industrial accident and occupational illness contributions will also be introduced. Companies will benefit from bonuses when taking the initiative further if they:

• strengthen their own occupational risk prevention system;

• recruit workers exclusively for occupational risk prevention services;

• show a decrease in the industrial accident rate.

The quality standards of external suppliers of risk prevention and health and safety systems will be monitored. Specific regional and sectoral trade union representatives will be in charge of the definition, development and fulfilment of the regulations in workplaces.

The second section puts forward the following measures, namely to:

• organise media campaigns;

• promote the idea that risk prevention is an economic investment directly linked to the quality of products and services;

• reinforce dissemination of the information supplied by the Ministry of Health and Consumption (Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, MSC) and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, MTAS) and the autonomous communities.

• create a new register of occupational illnesses;

• publish quarterly figures on accidents at work and occupational illnesses;

• train professionals in risk prevention, for example graduates in industrial medicine;

• incorporate health and safety training into the curriculum of general education and vocational training;

• increase the number of inspectors;

• bring the National Institute for Safety and Hygiene at Work (Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo, INSHT) into line with the development of the strategy.

Commentary

As other social partners, such as the Confederation of Education Worker Unions (Confederación de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de la Enseñanza, STES), have pointed out with regard to previous developments of the Occupational Risk Prevention Law (1995), the draft of the strategy does not include specific measures for groups whose social conditions make them vulnerable. These groups are occasionally mentioned, but no policies have been specifically developed with them in mind.

Furthermore, the outsourcing of the provision of risk prevention and health and safety systems is based on an excessively technocratic assessment. The quality criteria of external services that can be observed and assessed (and accredited) will be related to the following:

• the ratio of human and material resources available;

• the time of response to the requirements of the contracting companies;

• the level of danger the activities carried out by the companies entails.

The final strategy may run the risk of being excessively bureaucratic if the only persons responsible for guaranteeing the establishment and implementation of the regulations are the regional and sectoral trade union delegates, who are external to the companies.

Strangely, while the strategy actively encourages companies to improve health and safety in the workplace, it lacks measures that foster participation and management of risk prevention of the workers themselves. Indeed, in some specific areas, there seems to be a desire to punish workers for infringing safety measures, although no sanctions are specified. Finally, aspects such as the definition of occupational illnesses and specific sectoral risks should be further developed.

Mari Luz Castellanos Ortega, CIREM Foundation