International Centre for Trade Union Rights

A Bhopal every monthAuthor(s): STIRLING SMITHSource: International Union Rights, Vol. 7, No. 1, Debate: WTO after Seattle: Focus on southAsia (2000), pp. 12-13Published by: International Centre for Trade Union RightsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41935830 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 20:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

International Centre for Trade Union Rights is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to International Union Rights.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:15:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

OPINION □ INDIA - HEALTH AND SAFETY

A Bhopal every month

STIRLING SMITH is a consultant in Workers

Education, Labour and Society International, London.

Previously he was project coordinator for the

Commonwealth Trade Union Council, Bombay; Chief Technical Advisor on

occupational safety health and environment for workers

organisations, ILO, New Delhi

DECEMBER the from

Bhopal the Union

1999 tragedy,

Carbide

is the when

15th

plant a release

anniversary

in the of capital

MIC of

DECEMBER the Bhopal tragedy, when a release of MIC from the Union Carbide plant in the capital

of the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh killed thou- sands while they slept. Thousands more suffer the after effects to this day. Some estimates for the number who have died are as high as 10,000. According to the Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests, since Bhopal, there have been more than 100 industrial leaks, causing more than 7,000 deaths.1

Bhopal took place in the content of a systemat- ic neglect of health and safety in India, where between 100,000 and 150,000 are killed every year at work. A Bhopal every month.

This figure will not be found in any official publication. Indian Labour Statistics 1994 pro- vides a figure of 1,624 total fatalities for 1993.

The greatest factor in the discrepancy is that there is no legalisation covering the majority of workers. Then how can we calculate accident statistics? I have followed a simple methodology ■ incidence rates for an industry are taken from UK or EU figures. Incidence rates are given as the number of fatal accidents per 100,000 workers. ■ the incidence rate is then applied to the known or estimated numbers of persons working in an industry in India. ■ a multiplier is then applied.

The basis for the multiplier is the World Bank. It has pointed out that work is more dangerous in developing countries; for example, a factory worker in Pakistan is eight times more likely to be killed at work than a factory worker in France. I have used a very conservative multiplier of four.2

Construction There are agreed to be about twenty million con- struction workers in India. In the UK, the average incidence rate (that is number of construction workers killed per 100,000) is 7.92. Translate to India, and this would give us a figure of 1,584. To apply the multiplier would produce a figure of 6,336.

Agricultural workers There is no legislation dealing with health and safety in agriculture in India. No statistics are col- lected.

In the European Union, the fatality rate in agri- cultural work is 14 deaths per 100,000 workers annually. Translate that to India, we get a figure of 26,740 (according to the 1991 census, 191 million workers are engaged in cultivation). Assuming an accident rate in India of four times the European average, the World Bank multiplier, we get a fig- ure of 106,960 people engaged in agriculture killed every year.

It might be argued that agriculture in India is 'low tech' and that accidents in the EU are mainly caused by machinery. This hypothesis would be

worth examining - any research into safety in India would be welcome - but there is wide- spread use of tractors, threshing machines etc in India. The greatest hazard in agricultural work, however, is pesticides.

Factories The Factories Act only applies to premises using power with more than ten employees or with more than 20 workers without power. A very large number of workshops, therefore, are not covered by the act which is enforced by states.

Many premises which should register under the Factories Act do not. Premises are used for activities which are unsuitable. On 31st May 1999, for example, there was an explosion and fire at a warehouse in old Delhi, in which at least 48 per- sons were killed. The warehouse had no license to store chemicals. Many of those killed were not working in the warehouse, but were nearby resi- dents.

An interesting survey was conducted in West Bengal by the state Labour Department. A total of 71 samples were taken from factories to see if the proper levels for chemicals, noise, heat, dust, lighting and solvents (for fire/explosion risk) were being followed or not.

Out of 71 samples, the survey found only six cases where samples were within the permissible limits. In heat, lighting and noise, not a single sample were within the limits laid down in the Factories Act, and these are very low.

In Vado vara3, Gujarat, workers went on strike against poor health and safety in June 1999. Forty three workers at a chemical plant were found to have nasal septum perforation - a classic and early sign of chromium poisoning. It was report- ed that all workers had not yet had a full medical examination, so there could be more cases. The only thing unusual about this case was that it came to light and received publicity.4

The state Labour ministry declared that the strike was illegal.

Calculations for factories and workshops are particularly difficult, but a figure of 10,000 work- place fatalities does not seem unreasonable.

Mining In mining, official figures run at an average of about 200 deaths per year. While most attention is concentrated on the disasters like New Kenda (1994) and Gaslitand (1995), where poor safety management led to 54 and 65 deaths respectively, there is a steady toll of smaller accidents. Roof falls in underground mines, and being run over by machinery in open cast mines are amongst the major hazards.

While the Mines Act and various rules framed under tht act are reasonable, there is an increas- ing problem with widespread use of contract labour in mines. Untrained and improperly super- vised, they are vulnerable themselves and endan-

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 1 2 Volume 7 Issue 1 2000

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:15:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ger the permanent mineworkers as well. A study by the mines inspectorate in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd (MCL) in Orissa found that all the fatal acci- dents in open cast mines were to the contractors workers, although they are only 50 per cent of the workforce.

There is evidence that fatal accidents to con- tractors workers are not recorded, so do not show up in the statistics. It is alleged by unions that the bodies of contractors workers killed in open cast mines are sometimes dumped by the side of public roads to pass off the death as a road accident.

In September 1998, the press reported that Coal India Ltd (CIL) had spent US$1.2 million on 30,000 self rescuers. These were substandard, but CIL had not checked them. In this instance, a union safety expert had raised concerned about the supplier, but these were ignored by CIL man- agement. CIL had not even withdrew the faulty self rescuers when asked to by mines inspectors.

Chronic neglect This article has focussed on accidents at work. The extent of occupational disease is massive and un-recognised. India is experiencing both the old fashioned diseases found in industrial hygiene textbooks in the UK in the 1930s as well as new hazards such as pesticides.

The Mines Act and Factories Act follow outdat- ed British Acts. None of the major ILO Conventions dealing with OSH have been rati- fied. Cases take years to come to court and fines are low.

Occupational safety and health is a grim pic- ture of chronic neglect by employers and the state in India. The World Bank and other agencies are calling for labour law reform. What is in fact needed is a major extension of labour law to include protection for the majority of unprotect- ed and unorganised workers.

Indian unions and safety Safety and health at work is an area where unions have a comparative advantage. According to stud- ies, workers in a workplace without a recognised trade union have double the chance of an acci- dent. ( British Journal of Industrial Relations June 1995). Unions are the main defence workers have against injury, death or disease.

Indian unions have neglected safety and health in the past. This is starting to change. The All India Trades Union Congress (AITUC) has issued good guidelines to all their affiliates on how to include safety in their Charter of Demands. The Indian National Mineworkers Federation now has a comprehensive policy and has designed a safety structure stretching from the mine level up to the national level.5

Safety and health - a human right The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work..." (Article 23)

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (India ratified this in 1979) expands this a little:

"The States parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment

of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure in particular:

"...(b) Safe and healthy working conditions (Article 7)

Heath and safety is also mentioned in the Indian constitution as a Directive principle of State Policy:

"42. Provision of just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. The State shall make provisions for securing just and humane condi- tions of work and for maternity relief."

Safety and health at work is therefore clearly a human right. But neither the government of India, nor major donors seem to recognise this. Trade unions remain the only institutions capable of taking up the issue. Currently they only organ- ise five per cent of the labour force who remain unprotected.

Notes 1 : Quoted in Down to Earth 2: World Bank, World Labour Report 1995 3: Perhaps better known outside India as Baroda 4: Down to Earth, June 30th 1999 5: AITUC Guidelines, February 1996; INMF, Resolution passed at conference, Nagpur, March 1998. Personal knowledge of writer.

Page 1 3 Volume 7 Issue 1 2000 INTERNATIONAL union rights

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 20:15:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions