The following three articles on workplace health and safety have been supplied by the TUC:
MPs warn about the working wounded
Employees are under pressure not to take sick leave entitlements when they're ill, Labour MPs have warned. The say job insecurity has left the UK workforce scared to take time off. Official figures show that the average number of sick days taken has fallen every year since the 2008 recession. Labour MP John McDonnell, quoted in the Guardian, said: 'High levels of unemployment and escalating job cuts in the public sector have created a climate of stressful insecurity at work. The result is that people who are unwell and should be taking time off sick are anxious about taking leave for fear of being victimised by managers or losing their job. This is completely counterproductive, as when people come in sick productivity falls and they infect colleagues.' MP Michael Meacher said the government was not doing enough to support employees: 'This is a government which regards sickness as a form of malingering. On top of job insecurity from rising unemployment and paring back of employment rights, is now added pressure on people to work even when ill." Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that the average number of days of sickness leave employees have taken has decreased from 5.6 per year in 2007 to 4.5 in 2011. Now, new research by Canada Life, suggests an average of just 4.1 sick days were taken last year. The research found that 93 per cent of workers would still go to work if they had a cold, while 80 per cent would attend despite stress-related illnesses; 81 per cent of those surveyed also said they thought they had become ill because another member of staff came into work when they were unwell.
HSE's independence is undermined by government
A decision by the government to impose an 'employee interests' representative on the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) board who did not have the support of trade unions has led to serious concerns about the independence of the official safety watchdog. The government is legally required to consult with 'bodies representing employee interests' before appointing the three employee board members, who have always been active trade unionists supported by the TUC. This year the TUC supported a candidate who is both on the TUC's general council and has an enviable track record on safety issues, Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU). The government instead hand-picked a retired union general secretary, Jonathan Baume, who had not been nominated by a single union. According to TUC head of organisation Kevin Rowan: 'The decision not to appoint Matt Wrack shows exactly what the government wants, which is a compliant board there to administer the organisation and make sure it delivers what the government wants. It wants to smother any independence and any challenge.' He said as a result 'we will end up with a board of professional committee-members', adding that with the exception of the two remaining union-nominated non-executive board members, all 'are either retired or semi-retired consultants.' He warned: 'The losers will not be the TUC, but the credibility of the government's claim to have an independent HSE and ultimately the workers whose lives and health will be put at risk.' Commenting on the government snub to Matt Wrack, the union's general secretary, FBU president Alan McLean said: 'The decision of the government not to appoint him suggests a serious weakening of any commitment to health and safety. Firefighters know very well that health and safety is not a matter for silly press stories - it is frequently a matter of life and death. The government's decision further threatens the future of health and safety provision for workers in the UK.'
Cameron's 'stupid and dangerous' move on safety
The TUC's top safety expert has branded the government's latest move to relax workplace safety controls as 'stupid and dangerous'. Hugh Robertson said the Deregulation Bill announced in the 8 May Queen's speech will pave the way for self-employed workers 'who pose no risks to others' to be removed from the scope of the Health and Safety at Work Act. According to the TUC head of safety, the move makes no sense, as the law only requires action to prevent risks; if there is no risk, then there is no problem to solve. Instead, the government is introducing a system where the self-employed will be unsure of their legal position - and this confusion could be deadly. 'Given that the most dangerous industries all have a high proportion of self-employed people in them (agriculture, construction etc) anything that confuses the situation is a recipe for disaster,' he warns. 'The government will say that these people in dangerous industries are not exempted and if you ask who is exempted they come up with examples like a novelist who works in their own home. Yes, but the novelist in their own home is only covered now if they put someone at risk. That will not change. What will change is that hundreds of thousands of other people simply will not know whether they are covered.' Robertson concludes: 'This stupid and dangerous proposal is being done in the name of reducing burdens. How it is going to remove any burdens is beyond me. It does not actually change the situation for those who genuinely do not pose a risk to others and only creates complete confusion for all the other self-employed. Instead it is an ideological move from a government that is solely interested in deregulation, or even worse, the illusion of deregulation, regardless of the cost. No-one is claiming that it will do anything to improve health and safety and it certainly is not going to simplify anything.' TUC general secretary Frances O'Grady said: 'Taking the protection of health and safety laws away from some of the UK's many self-employed workers - who are more than twice as likely as employees to be killed at work - will not help businesses nor grow our economy one bit. It's a recipe for confusion as many people will now be unsure about their rights and responsibilities. The result is likely to be an increase in workplace accidents.'
