27 April, 2010
Today is International Commemoration Day for Dead and Injured Workers. It is the day that trade unions, civil society organizations, and NGOs across the world mourn for the dead who have died from job-deduced accidents or diseases, and pledge ever more to wage the fight for safe, health, and risk-free workplaces.
Today, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), together with national labour centres and the Global Union Federations have chosen the theme “Unions Make Work Safer” for 28 April, known simply as Workers’ Memorial Day. It is only fitting because of the major role that trade unions play to constantly monitor – and improve – occupational safety and health.
All over the world, workers and their representatives will conduct events, demonstrations, vigils, symposiums, and a host of other activities to mark the day. The day is marked by trade unions and safety and health groups in over 140 countries.
This commemoration day is rooted in the Canadian labour movement, whose unions worked for several years before Canada’s Parliament, in 1989, passed Bill C-223, adopting 28 April as the official “Day of Mourning” in Canada. It took on further significance in 1996 when the United Nations (UN) lit a commemorative candle for the worker-victims of the Kader toy factory fire in Thailand that occurred in 1993, in which 188 mostly young women died and another 500 severely injured.
Since that 1996 UN vigil, 21 countries have officially recognised the day, with the UK being the latest in January 2010.
“Each year,” stated ICEM General Secretary Manfred Warda, “Workers’ Memorial Day gains more significance and more recognition. It is only fitting that this year, with the vast number of workers and their trade unions who vigilantly monitor everyday workplace safety and health, the theme ‘Unions Make Work Safer’ has been chosen.”
With that, the ICEM today presents a special newsletter below that reflects that theme.
28 April: A Day to Mourn the Dead, Fight for the Living
Understanding Safety Statistics:
Every 28 April, the labour movement pauses to remember those who have sacrificed their lives or health in the course of trying to earn a living. Marking such a day, however, begs the question: what is the scope of the problem? How dangerous is work?
Safety statistics are among the worst possible indicators of actual safety, and yet the one we most frequently use. The main source of international statistics and estimates on workplace safety and health is derived from the ILO.
The official estimates are shocking. But the truth is probably much worse.
The ILO estimates some 2.3 million workers die each year, as the result of their work. This includes some 360,000 accidental deaths, and an estimated 1.95 million fatal occupational diseases, mainly cancer. For accidental deaths in particular, the ILO relies on numbers provided by national governments, usually from their workers' compensation systems.
First, many workers are not covered by workers' compensation. They may be in excluded occupations, which can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or they may work in the unregulated "informal" sector of the economy. Then, workers' compensation systems are in a perpetual conflict of interest when it comes to compiling such statistics, since every time they acknowledge a fatality they must then pay compensation. Cash-strapped governments and employers who benefit from reduced assessments if they can show a low accident rate, frequently pressure workers' compensation systems to deny claims from injured or ill workers. This in turn is transmitted to workers in the form of incentives to reduce reporting of accidents, such as a "prize" or bonus being offered to the shift or department that has the lowest number of lost-time injuries.
Often an occupational fatality is not identified as such. For example, doctors often have difficulty recognizing the occupational origin of diseases and deaths. Another example: road accidents and acts of violence in the workplace are sometimes not reported as "occupational" deaths. An article in the 15 October 1994 issue of Patient Care magazine, a medical journal, estimated that "95-97% of work related deaths may not be so identified because of under diagnosis and under reporting." Even if 95 to 97% under-identification may seem extreme, few people dispute that workplace fatalities are grossly under-reported. Nobody can say exactly how many people die of work injuries and illnesses each year.
Those deaths that are recognised, in general, tend to be those that are immediate, brutal, and obvious. Deaths due to illnesses that have an occupational origin are much more rarely recognized. For example, estimates of the percentage of all cancer deaths that are occupational in origin range from 9-10%. That percentage would mean that occupational cancer alone causes several times the number of occupational fatalities attributed to all sources that are "officially" reported.
Although the ILO estimate for total work-related deaths includes an estimate for the number of cancer fatalities, it is a very conservative estimate.
And that's just cancer. There are a host of other occupational diseases ranging from asbestosis and asthma to destruction of the liver, kidneys, immune system or nervous system that are virtually impossible to estimate.
The ICEM estimate: the true number of occupational deaths is at least one order of magnitude greater than the officially reported numbers.
How Many are Injured?
The ILO estimates some 270 million workplace accidents per year that lead to absences from work of three days or more. This again is an underestimate since it counts primarily those reported and accepted by compensation boards. Under reporting, under diagnosis, and under acceptance are problems for injury statistics just as they are for fatality statistics.
Some 160 million workers suffer from non-fatal, or not-yet-fatal, work-related diseases. The same article in Patient Care magazine referred to above estimates that 60-90% of all new cases of work related diseases are not properly classified as occupational.
But non-fatal accidents and illnesses are even more susceptible to under-reporting, intimidation, and suppression of reporting, and outright fraud than fatalities. (It is slightly more difficult to conceal a dead body than an injury – although not impossible.)
Workplace drug testing has proven to be the "nuclear weapon" of workplace injury reporting. Why? Because, in workplaces that practice "for cause" or "post-incident" testing, reporting a cut finger now puts the worker at risk of humiliation, discipline, or even dismissal in the event of a false positive test result. Would a rational human being risk that, or would he or she put a band aid on the cut and keep his or her mouth shut, even taking "sick time" if necessary rather than report a workplace accident?
The ICEM estimate: the true number of occupational injuries and diseases is at least one order of magnitude greater than the officially reported numbers.
Should I or Shouldn’t I? Why Unions Matter
The sheet-metal was sharp. Reaching for another piece to work on, Jane felt the edge on her skin, followed by the warm feel of blood. The cut was not terribly serious. What should she do?
One of her alternatives was to report the injury – as she knew she should, and as the law required – and face an interrogation by managers, and at least one or two accident investigation meetings. Was she following written instructions? Was she wearing the prescribed safety equipment? Was she a careless worker? Might she be suspended from her safety-sensitive job while undergoing re-training on procedures? Worse still, her employer had a policy of "post incident drug testing." Would she risk her decent-paying job to a potential false positive result? Two months ago, Jon, her co-worker, had been subjected to shame and humiliation when a supervisor who did not like him had let the local newspaper know that he was "under investigation for possible drug use" following an accident. Even though the results had come back negative, the damage to his reputation was done. The news story had been enough for some parents to question his fitness to coach a youth football team.
But Jane had another alternative. She could keep her mouth shut. Put a bandage on the cut. She was already behind on her work. Nothing would happen. Even if the cut became infected, she could take a medical leave day to visit the doctor and get some antibiotics.
Which alternative would you choose?
The preceding fable illustrates one of the reasons why unions make work safer. Non-union workers rightly fear being disciplined or discharged on the whim of a supervisor. Speaking out can be hazardous to one's career, and fear can discourage workers from reporting accidents.
However, it is harder to hide a dead body. It is no surprise that unionised workplaces may have higher rates of reported accidents, but lower numbers of fatalities. Unions give workers a voice in the workplace and protect them from unreasonable reprisals. Accidents are more likely to be reported, and hazards are more likely to be corrected.
Corporate safety programmes that focus on reported accidents can reduce the reporting, rather than the accidents. Especially where there is no union. As for occupational diseases, it is the union that usually provides the push for their recognition and correction of the causes.
Workers demand three fundamental rights in occupational health and safety:
The right to know about the hazards they work with;
The right to refuse unsafe work;
The right to participate in occupational health and safety decision-making.
In some parts of the world, these rights are recognized in law. But it is a strong union that converts these rights from words on paper to a safer workplace.
ICEM’s ILO 176 Campaign: Safety in Mining
The ICEM's ongoing campaign for the ratification of ILO Convention 176, the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, and the associated Recommendation 183 has entered a new phase. The ICEM has made a new poster available, and a new campaign manual for ILO Convention 176 is available on the ICEM website. Click here to view both.
What is in ILO Convention 176, and why is it important?
The ILO develops and promotes workplace standards on a variety of topics, from child labour, to the right to form unions and bargain collectively, to forced labour, to occupational health and safety. It is important to note that the ILO is a specialized agency of the UN, and unique among UN agencies, because it is governed by a tripartite body with representation from governments, employers, and unions.
ILO Convention 176, and its associated Recommendation 183, outline a basic legislative and regulatory framework for safety in mining. To take effect, ILO 176 must be ratified by a country and the country's occupational health and safety legislation modified to at least meet the minimum requirements of the Convention.
ILO 176 on Safety and Health was adopted by the ILO in 1995 after hard work and significant pressure from one of ICEM's predecessors, the Mineworkers' International Federation (MIF).
For the full text of ILO 176, again visit the ICEM website here.
What Convention 176 Demands:
ILO Convention 176 demands that employers perform risk assessments, and control any identified hazards at the source, through good engineering design, or as a last resort through personal protective equipment. Employers are expected to exercise "due diligence" in the protection of workers' health and safety. Mines must be properly engineered, designed, and constructed for safety, with provision of at least two separate means of exit and adequate communications systems. Sufficient ventilation with monitoring for contaminants, and of course fire prevention, detection, and firefighting systems, must be provided. Emergency response plans must be developed and maintained, and if serious dangers are detected, operations must be stopped and workers evacuated. Workers are to be provided with information and training on how the hazards they face and how to work safely. Accidents must be investigated and corrective actions taken.
Workers have the right to report, and receive reports on, accidents and dangerous occurrences and hazards. Workers can request workplace inspections from the employer and the regulatory authority, and be informed workplace hazards. Workers must have the right to refuse unsafe work, and remove themselves from danger. In addition, workers should select workplace health and safety representatives with the authority to participate in investigations and inspections, monitor health and safety matters, have recourse to advisers and experts, and consult with the employer and the government regulators.
Governments, as the responsible authorities, are expected to create a legislative and regulatory framework that protects workers’ safety and health. This is to be accomplished by requiring employers and workers to comply with the specifics of ILO Convention 176. In addition, the responsible authorities are expected to maintain adequate regulatory mine supervision and inspection, and require the reporting of accidents and maintenance of statistics.
ILO Convention 176 is not the only ILO convention that pertains to mining safety, as there are other Conventions that discuss topics from guarding of machinery to radiation protection to medical examinations that also enhance worker health and safety. However, the employer responsibilities and worker rights contained in Convention 176 provide a solid basis for the implementation of other measures.
So far, only 24 countries have ratified ILO C176, so much work remains to be done. Contact the ICEM for further information.
Canada’s Shame: The Tragedy of Asbestos
Asbestos diseases continue to kill millions worldwide. Why has this deadly substance not been banned? Canada holds the key to the puzzle.
Here are the world's principle asbestos producers, as provided from the US Geological Survey using year 2000 statistics:
International treaties are signed by national governments. Canada is not the world's largest asbestos producer. However, it is a fairly large asbestos producer – and the largest "first world" producer on the list. For many years, Canada has provided the political and "scientific" leadership to other asbestos-exporting countries.
The asbestos industry in Canada would not exist today without heavy government subsidies. Canada's Asbestos Institute (or, as it now calls itself, the Chrysotile Institute – trying to draw a misleading distinction between chrysotile and other forms of asbestos) is the leading worldwide producer of faux-scientific "studies" that "prove" the safety of asbestos. Other asbestos producers know this and tend to follow Canada's lead on this matter. Canada often quietly organizes the opposition to bring asbestos under the control of international instruments like the Rotterdam Convention.
The key to getting a global ban on asbestos lies in Canada. If Canadian support for the asbestos industry fails, then a global asbestos ban will succeed. Everyone who examines the evidence by now knows that the link between all forms of asbestos and (asbestosis, mesothelioma, other cancers) is irrefutable.
Canada is vulnerable on this issue right now. There are only a few hundred asbestos miners left in Canada, and the industry is heavily subsidized. Transferring the money from subsidies to a Just Transition program for the miners and their communities would allow a gold-plated programme to be put in place. Recent efforts to use the asbestos issue to embarrass Quebec premier Jean Charest on his trade mission to India, were highly effective.
However, asbestos is not just another industry – in Quebec and across Canada it is an icon. It is a part of the cultural history and mythology not just of the labour movement, but of the province of Quebec, even the country of Canada. It was in the asbestos mines of Quebec that the modern Quebec labour movement was born so few labour leaders dare to criticize the industry. The violent 1949 strike in Asbestos, Quebec, came to symbolize the struggles of Francophone workers against Anglophone bosses, and against foreign-owned companies that didn't care in the least about the communities in which they operated.
It was a turning point in Quebec's "Quiet Revolution" during which many Quebecois turned away from the Catholic Church towards secular institutions. It was one of the first strikes in Canada to explicitly make a health and safety issue one of the strikers' key demands. It was also during that strike that many future leaders forged their social ideas and attitudes – including a young reporter covering the strike named Pierre Elliott Trudeau, later one of Canada's most famous Prime Ministers. Asbestos is a political and historical icon that politicians are loathe to touch.
But all things change with time. Canada and Quebec must find a way to honour the history of those heroic asbestos miners without defending the deadly asbestos industry. Most Canadians, including most Quebecois, understand that asbestos kills. If the international labour movement continues to put pressure on Canadian and Quebec political leaders, those leaders will one day be forced to do what their voters already know must be done.
With the G8 and G20 meetings coming to Canada in June, it is timely for the global labour movement to remind Canada of its embarrassing stand.