6th European Work Hazards Conference, March 14-16 1997, Egmond aan Zee, The Netherlands
Summary of the workshop "How to deal with deregulation; experiences and lessons in the field of hazardous substances"
Theo-Jan Heesen, Chemielinco BV, Utrecht
Jan Verhagen, Industrial Workers Union FNV, Amsterdam
About deregulation
Deregulation and simplifying laws and regulations governing health and safety at work - more and more becomes an issue of national and international governmental policy. The distinction between simplification and deregulation is not always very clear. In the workshop both simplification and deregulation have been discussed.
───────────────────────────────────
Simplifications
New legal texts incorporating new and simpler approaches or changing legal or administrative provisions to reduce burdens.
Deregulations
Reduction or removal of government regulations. Regulations are no longer necessary or their objectives can be achieved more effectively through other mechanisms.
───────────────────────────────────
Present laws and regulations often contain a large amount of specific instructions and obligations. In many cases this is the result of the enforcement by Member States of European Union legislation. In the past few years many European countries have changed their laws on health and safety due to EU regulations.
Meanwhile, however, opposition against so called 'over-regulation' is growing in Europe. The opposition is headed by a lobby of big multinational enterprises, and by forerunners of deregulation such as the British and Dutch government. We have already seen the report of the 'Molitor Group' and the Anglo-German report 'Deregulation now'. In several countries of the European Union attempts to deregulate health and safety regulations are taking place. At the same time, however, deregulation in EU Member States is hindered by EU regulations. And there are some examples of European countries which are looking for other opportunities for modernization of health and safety regulation instead of deregulation.
Contradictions and questions
We have to accept that despite specific regulations have existed for quit a long period, poor working conditions tend to persist. Maybe other control mechanisms will prove to be more appropriate. On the other hand deregulation could result in even worse: no specific standards to enforce improvement of bad work situations.
───────────────────────────────────
Detailed regulation ® Less rules
¯
? ¯ ?
Poor compliance ® Improved compliance
───────────────────────────────────
Important questions to be answered are:
- How can the health and safety situation be improved in workplaces?
- Can we profit from deregulations?
Deregulation across Europe
The background document of this workshop reported the experiences with law enforcement and deregulation in several countries. Here we will summarize some examples.
United Kingdom
Despite the governments' deregulation initiatives most health and safety regulations have not been abolished due to the response from activists and trade unions. But there are still several examples of deregulation. An example is the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) on respiratory sensitizers. In 1992 the Health and Safety Executive issued the draft regulation. However the ACoP was downgraded to a Guidance. Another example was the removal of the Occupational Exposure Standard (OES) for White spirit and 5 other hydrocarbons. Instead the HSE recommended a procedure for calculating the 'in-house' occupational exposure limits (OELS) of hydrocarbons. But unlike OESs, these OELs do not have any legal status. In general this means a shift in the exposure setting process from the HSE onto employers and chemical manufacturers.
The Netherlands
The Ministry of Social Affairs has made a proposal for deregulation of the Work Environment Act. The general idea is a shift from law enforcement toward voluntary compliance and co-operative programs between workers and employers. The Inspectorate should focus only at major or large risks (such as accidents) and enforce regulations in this field. 'Minor' health and safety issues (such as indoor climate, computer workplaces) or detailed regulations on control measures should be more and more negotiated between employers and workers at company or branch level.
Germany
In some states of Germany (Bundesländer) the idea has been aired to hand over tasks of the Labour Inspectorate to the Berufsgenossenschaften - in order to save money. At the same time the Berufsgenossenschaften tried to get hold of additional areas of responsibility.
To understand this we have to describe the complex German situation. In Germany both institutions have the task of enforcing the regulations. The more than 40 'Berufsgenossenschaften' whose budgets are paid by the employers, are organized by trade. Their responsibility is the prevention of accident and work-related illnesses, they have the power to establish regulations. On the other hand there are the 16 Labour Inspectorates of the 16 federal states (Bundesländer). They uphold the federal health and safety law.
Because the Berufsgenossenschaften lost their role in developing national standards as a result of the EU-directives on health and safety and the European technical standards, they are looking for opportunities in order not to lose influence. However owing to a coalition of the federal administration, employers and unions (against the federal states) the present situation will not change.
Austria
Deregulation is mainly taking place in the field of working times. But opposition against health and safety regulations is growing in Austria. As a result of Austria's joining the EU and the implementation of new Work Environment Act, employers fear a large number of new regulations. Employers, and the big majority of them are SMEs, do not see the necessity of the new regulations, they see them as a heavy burden. Recently employers and the major political party (ÖVP) collected their forces and openly tried to negotiate amendments on the 1994 Work Environment Act.
Denmark
Last year a strong opposition against European regulations comes from a coalition of workers and employers' organizations. They oppose the Working Time Directive and regulations about stress. Because the working times in Denmark are not regulated by law but by central bargaining agreements, both parties do not want interference from the Labour Inspectorate. Central bargaining agreements are the domain of trade unions and employers' organizations, not of the government. Another reason is that the Danish fear this regulation will decrease their competition force in relation to Eastern European Countries
Europe
In 1994 as a result of the Anglo-German Summit the two governments invited a group of leading businessmen from the UK and Germany to scrutinize EC regulation and act as a stimulus for specific deregulatory measures in Europe. In March 1995 they reported on their conclusions.
The group presented several EC-directives which should be amended and simplified. They mentioned for example the Dangerous Substances Directive, which is related to the labeling of dangerous substances, and Display Screen Equipment Directive and the Physical Agents Directive (on noise, vibration and radiation).
Almost at the same time the European Commission asked for consult on deregulation. Simplification of regulation is seen by the EC as an important factor in improving employment in Europe. In June 1995 the Molitor Group, named after its chairman, reported to the EC. The Molitor Group, also examined the health and safety directives. They proposed to stop the introduction of new regulations and to promote a proper application of the current regulations. They also proposed to separate the details of regulations from the directive, for example published in a guide or as a proposal.
Results of the workshop: experiences and conclusions
During the workshop several conclusions have been drawn regarding deregulation across Europe:
- In most European countries deregulation of H&S laws and standards up to now hardly resulted in an adaption of legislation. In the field of toxic substances the influence of deregulation is even smaller. When activities in the field of deregulation become more specific, until now they mostly aim at such things as working times, other non-physical aspects of H&S, and H&S legislation in general.
- In some Memberstates of the EU independent standardization activities has been delayed or even stopped. This resulted in some cases in lower standards for H&S.
- In other countries there is a discussion going on about the replacement of present detailed regulation (telling how to reach H&S-protection) by a more global legislation (telling which level has to be reached). So instead of describing means, targets are addressed. Related to this, officials have high expectations of 'self-regulation' of 'self-control' within companies. However in this approach workers will be the weaker party.
Regarding the present regulation, two conclusions haven been drawn:
- Good laws are important, but they are not the only crucial aspect to reach H&S improvement. Others are:
* clear guidance how to practice law
* proper and firm ways of enforcing the law
* enough resources to get H&S legislation implemented
* strengthening of workers influence on their own health and safety within the companies
- Nevertheless there is a definite need, among workers and trade-unions to decrease the overwhelming number and complexity of the current H&S regulation. It is in the benefit of the workers' position to improve the clearness and goals of regulations and the unequivocality of standards and procedures. Therefore workers are not against changing laws on health and safety, on the contrary.
Present deregulation in EU countries has two main aspects:
* lowering the level of workers protection
* halfhearted reduction of useless, unclear, contradictory regulations
Both aspects are easily mixed up. It is not in the interest of workers just to oppose or to accept deregulation. It is in the interest of the workers to take initiative, based on a workers point of view. This means that we should make a clear distinction between the two aspects. We should take the claims of lobbyist (pro deregulation) serious with respect to transparency of regulation and look for tactical coalitions. Nevertheless we must create guarantees that the level of protection and the level of workers influence on H&S is not decreased.
Six important criteria for workers to examine both deregulation operations and existing laws are:
a) level of protection guaranteed
b) simplicity and clearness
c) unequivocality of standards, rules and procedures
d) ease of maintenance (ease compliances)
e) consequences for positions and influence of workers and their organizations of H&S.
f) impact on the willingness of employers to optimize H&S conditions at work.
Conditions to strengthen workers influence on H&S
A crucial factor with respect to deregulation and more 'self control' and 'self-regulation' is the position of workers. In order to guarantee a strong workers' influence several conditions have to be met:
- Improved education and training and more facilities and time of safety reps and other workers' representatives in the field of H&S.
- The training programs should be based on the principle 'learning by doing'.
- More attention for H&S within trade-unions, like information and training, practical guidelines, H&S 'tools', evaluation of risks and legislation-effectiveness.
- Focus on the whole workforce, not only on the workers representatives, in order to prevent isolation from thee representatives.
- Clear regulations and more attention to the workers' right to refuse unsafe and unhealthy work.
How to organize things
About 15 people attended the workshop, coming form Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A subnetwork was not established. However the participants of the workshop intended to look for means get more attention for developments in H&S-regulations. One suggestion was to establish closer relations between TUTB-activities, trade-unions and trade-unionists. But also discussions at work or in the union, demanding the unions for more activities and attending Internet to keep in touch, are ways to create more involvement.