health and safety of working students: report from pilot study kathryn woodcock, phd, peng...
Post on 30-Dec-2015
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Health and safety of Health and safety of Working students: Working students: Report from pilot Report from pilot studystudyKathryn Woodcock, Kathryn Woodcock, PhD, PEngPhD, PEngOccupational and Public HealthOccupational and Public Health
Maurice Mazerolle, Maurice Mazerolle, PhDPhDBusiness ManagementBusiness Management
Causal model of young Causal model of young worker injuryworker injury
The goal of this research is to validate and determine the weights of The goal of this research is to validate and determine the weights of the paths in the model so that interventions may focus on more the paths in the model so that interventions may focus on more important causal paths.important causal paths.
Background to this reportBackground to this report
Intent of studyIntent of studyTest feasibility of methodsTest feasibility of methods
Improve statistical estimation of sample Improve statistical estimation of sample size requirement to develop multi-factor size requirement to develop multi-factor modelmodel
RAC funded as pilot study RAC funded as pilot study
LimitationsLimitationsPilot not designed to generalize results Pilot not designed to generalize results beyond samplebeyond sample
Findings do suggest areas for further Findings do suggest areas for further evaluationevaluation
Young workers 15–24Young workers 15–24Policy and research priority: 10-15 youth fatalities/year Policy and research priority: 10-15 youth fatalities/year in Ontario; almost 16,000 lost time injury claims per in Ontario; almost 16,000 lost time injury claims per year. year. Age-based work restrictions largely stop at 18Age-based work restrictions largely stop at 18Pronounced differences between 15 and 24 year oldsPronounced differences between 15 and 24 year oldsLarge proportion of university students must work, yet Large proportion of university students must work, yet they may have little more work experience than high they may have little more work experience than high school aged workersschool aged workersYouth information intended for high school audience Youth information intended for high school audience (but products actually seem to speak to parents in tone (but products actually seem to speak to parents in tone and content)and content)Most youth involvement in program development is Most youth involvement in program development is “participatory” rather than “self-directed” nature: “participatory” rather than “self-directed” nature: youth input guided by eldersyouth input guided by elders
Student involvementStudent involvementProject philosophy: learn how students Project philosophy: learn how students themselves define the problem and themselves define the problem and determine solutions for workplace determine solutions for workplace health and safetyhealth and safetyCourse project: politics and public Course project: politics and public administration worked on survey incorporating administration worked on survey incorporating faculty needs. (approved by Research Ethics faculty needs. (approved by Research Ethics Board)Board)Paid Ryerson Business Consulting Service Paid Ryerson Business Consulting Service students to administer surveys in Summer students to administer surveys in Summer 2002, enter data and produce preliminary 2002, enter data and produce preliminary analyses analyses Student research assistant for participant-Student research assistant for participant-observation: abortedobservation: aborted
Pilot findingsPilot findings
Sample characteristicsSample characteristicsPerforming unsafe workPerforming unsafe workFactors potentially influencing Factors potentially influencing unsafe workunsafe work
InvincibilityInvincibilityHazard knowledgeHazard knowledgeRights knowledgeRights knowledgeHazardous work inherent to the jobHazardous work inherent to the job
Injury experienceInjury experience
Age (N=175)
1 13
14
21
24
1617
13
911
46
7
3 31 1
4
13
1 12
1 1 1 1 12
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Num
ber
45%
55%
Most respondents (55%) were under 25, but the Most respondents (55%) were under 25, but the age distribution allows some age-based age distribution allows some age-based comparisons.comparisons.
WorkplacesWorkplacesWorkplace size
(N=174)
1—510%
6—2030%
21—10022%
>10038%
Workplace is unionized(N=170)
Yes
No Don't KnowMost respondents worked Most respondents worked in business and services , in business and services , therefore no inter-sector therefore no inter-sector comparisons were comparisons were possible.possible.
Have you performed an unsafe work Have you performed an unsafe work tasktask
(N=179)(N=179)
Yes32%
Don't know3%No
65%
Reason(s) given by those who reported performing unsafe work
(N = 57)
14
4
26
16
21
21
24
28
12
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Personallystrong/quick/resistant
Personally lucky
Did not know it wasunsafe
Suspected unsafe butwas told it was safe
Did not know I couldrefuse
Other workers wouldlook down on me
Feared dismissal
Threatened withdismissal
Was wearingprotective equipment
Key:"Invincibility" beliefsHazard knowledgeRights knowledgeRights beliefs
% reporting performance of unsafe work vs. responses to other questions
31%
18%
30%
42%
55%
55%Unionized
Not unionized
Had WHMIStraining
No WHMIS training
Would assume workwas safe if others
doing it
Would not assumesafe based on
others
Risk perceptionRisk perceptionEstimated likelihood of injury and disease
(Recollection of pre-employment, N=173)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Minor Major Fatal SeriousDisease
Propo
rtio
n o
f re
sponse
s
very likely
quite possible
small chance
impossible
Invincibility beliefsInvincibility beliefsRespondents who reported having performed an unsafe work Respondents who reported having performed an unsafe work task were asked for their reason. An explanation of being task were asked for their reason. An explanation of being personally strong, quick, or resistantpersonally strong, quick, or resistant, or being , or being usually pretty usually pretty luckylucky was classified as an expression of “invincibility”. was classified as an expression of “invincibility”.
% indicating "invincible"
25%
13%
14%
18%
57%
13%
Male (p<.025)
Female
Age 15-24
Age 25+
Assume safe if others doing
Would not assume
Estimated risk of injury
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
"Invincible" Notinvincible
Likely
Possible
Chance
Impossible
Invincibility beliefs?Invincibility beliefs?
““Invincibility” and risk Invincibility” and risk perception appear to be perception appear to be alternate reasoning alternate reasoning strategies, not strategies, not components of the components of the same strategy. Those same strategy. Those perceive injury as perceive injury as impossible do not need impossible do not need to feel invincible, and to feel invincible, and vice versa.vice versa.
Estimated likelihood Estimated likelihood (% agreeing)(% agreeing)
Contrary to usual beliefs Contrary to usual beliefs about youth and safety about youth and safety training, more of those older training, more of those older than 25 and with OHS training than 25 and with OHS training rated injury/disease as rated injury/disease as “impossible” than those “impossible” than those without training and younger. without training and younger. (Not statistically significant, but (Not statistically significant, but opposite direction from opposite direction from conventional wisdom.)conventional wisdom.)
The proportion who rated The proportion who rated injury/disease quite injury/disease quite possible/likely was not much possible/likely was not much different between different between older/younger respondentsolder/younger respondents
47%
40%
45%
37%
10%
11%
Injury/disease impossible
Had OHS training (various)
Had no OHS training
Age 25+
Age under 25
Injury/disease very likely/quite possible
Age 25+
Age under 25
Hazard knowledgeHazard knowledgeTypes of workplace health and safety
training received(N=181)
44
68
22
33
Other
Preventing falls
Safe lifting
WHMIS
79/181 had received no OHS training79/181 had received no OHS trainingOnly 67/102 had received OHS training from Only 67/102 had received OHS training from the current employerthe current employer
Factors affecting training Factors affecting training receivedreceived% Having safety training
81.5%
42.6%
69.7%
52.0%
76.6%
44.5%
OHS committee (p<.0001)
No OHS committee
Unionized (p<.07)
Not unionized
Age >25 (p<.0001)
Age <25
Overall 56.4% had Overall 56.4% had received some training at received some training at some workplace however some workplace however this was influenced by this was influenced by unionization and unionization and existence of OHS existence of OHS committee. Older committee. Older students were more likely students were more likely to work in larger, to work in larger, unionized workplaces and unionized workplaces and unionized workplaces unionized workplaces were more likely to have were more likely to have OHS committees.OHS committees.Students working in Students working in smaller workplaces (<20 smaller workplaces (<20 employees) were less employees) were less likely to have safety likely to have safety training (p<.0001)training (p<.0001)
Other sources of hazard Other sources of hazard knowledgeknowledge
Most likely ask to find if work/workplace had hazards (N=174)
Assume it was okay if others were doing it
12%
Someone in the workplace
66%
Search on own (e.g., manual)
7%
Someone outside the workplace
15%
Rights knowledgeRights knowledgeRecall reasons presented Recall reasons presented earlier by those who earlier by those who reported performing reported performing unsafe work (N=57)unsafe work (N=57)
21 (37.5%) said that 21 (37.5%) said that they were they were unaware that unaware that they could refusethey could refuse unsafe unsafe work.work.
HoweverHowever30 (52.6%) feared or 30 (52.6%) feared or were threatened with were threatened with dismissal if they refuseddismissal if they refused
Rights beliefs are as Rights beliefs are as important as rights important as rights knowledge, and beliefs knowledge, and beliefs must match realitymust match realityStudents cannot afford to Students cannot afford to gamble on rights that gamble on rights that may be merely may be merely theoretical theoretical
Training in OHS Rights (N=181)
No OHS training
44%
Had OHS rights
training31%
Some OHS training
but not on rights25%
Students can’t afford job Students can’t afford job lossloss
Motivation for working (N=183, multiple responses allowed)
172324
48
65
98
11231835
54
87
-5
20
45
70
95
120
Afford tuition Experience tocompete for jobsafter graduation
Socialinteraction at
work
Discounts orother benefits
Enhancecomprehension
of coursecontent
Supportdependent
Num
ber
during school term
during co-op or summer
Relation of job activities to educational goals(N=173)
Directly related39%
Same industry12%
General experience
25%
Just money24%
Sources of rights Sources of rights knowledgeknowledge
Safety committee (N=171)
Committee but activities are not well
known16%
Don't know whether there is a committee
23%
No committee
32%
Activities well known29%
% Reporting access to a % Reporting access to a safety committeesafety committee
68.2%
42.1%
20.8%
17.7%
56.9%
32.7%
86.7%
49.4%
Workplace size 100+ workers
Workplace size 21-100
Workplace size 6-20
Workplace size 1-5
Age 25+
Age <25
Union
Non union
Committee required by
OHSAct
Committee not required by OHSAct
Injury experience (%)Injury experience (%)
31%
58%
19%
38%
21%
Overall
Those who have done unsafe worktask (p<.0001)
Those who have not done unsafework
Those who have had OHS training(various) (p<.02)
Those who have not had any safetytraining
No association with gender, age, existence of safety committee, or workplace size.
Relationship with training is counter-intuitive.PILOT LIMITATION:Although a greater proportion of those who had OHS training had injuries than those without training, the sequence of training and injury is unknown. Training may have been given in response to injury or at a later time for some reason.
Age affects training-injury Age affects training-injury relation?relation?
Different association between training and injury when examining older and younger workers separately.PILOT LIMITATION: may be related to sample size/rate however further study is required.OHS training approaches have changed over the years.
Training and injury, by age group
No training% injured
7%
No training, % injured
24%
Trained% injured
33%
Trained% injured
42%
Overall % injured
Age <25 Age 25+
Do young workers have more Do young workers have more injuries?injuries?
Young workers disproportionately more likely to report having had an injury
0
2
4
6
8
10
15 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 42 48 53
Age of respondent
Inju
ries
am
ong r
esponden
ts
Injuries distributed by exposed years
Injuries distributed by exposed person
Actual injuries by age of respondent
Qualitative methodsQualitative methodsObservations and resultsObservations and results
Student group leadership is more charismatic than Student group leadership is more charismatic than bureaucratic, thus priorities are volatile. Commitment is bureaucratic, thus priorities are volatile. Commitment is contingent on individuals, but is no less sincere.contingent on individuals, but is no less sincere.
Delay of 16 months from proposal to receipt of funds (20 months Delay of 16 months from proposal to receipt of funds (20 months from original planning discussions)from original planning discussions)Student film crew remained availableStudent film crew remained availableOriginal RWSC student leaders were no longer involvedOriginal RWSC student leaders were no longer involvedStudent organization (RyeSAC) priorities changed.Student organization (RyeSAC) priorities changed.The video action research was not possible.The video action research was not possible.RECOMMENDED: Grants involving partnerships with youth RECOMMENDED: Grants involving partnerships with youth organizations must be adjudicated and awarded on a fast track to organizations must be adjudicated and awarded on a fast track to capture enthusiasm and commitment before individuals change.capture enthusiasm and commitment before individuals change.
Working students deal with health and safety concerns Working students deal with health and safety concerns interstitially: while conducting other business. They do not interstitially: while conducting other business. They do not tend to make special trips to pursue information.tend to make special trips to pursue information.
Ryerson relocated RWSC to location where drop-in traffic was Ryerson relocated RWSC to location where drop-in traffic was negligiblenegligibleParticipant-observer had nothing to observe.Participant-observer had nothing to observe.
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsSponsored by Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Research Advisory Council “Solutions for Workplace Change” program, Ryerson University Faculty of Community Services and Faculty of Business SRC programs, and Ontario Work-Study Program. The cooperation of RyeSAC, the Ryerson Working Students’ Centre and the assistance of the students in PPA 553 (Prof. Myer Siemiatycki) and Ryerson Business Consulting Service is gratefully acknowledged.
top related