Social dialogue helps to improve working conditions

A 2009–2010 survey on working conditions and risks by the Latvian Employers’ Confederation repeated a similar survey from 2005 to 2006. Employees were more satisfied with their job and working conditions than the self-employed, though only the latter reported increased satisfaction. Employers with a collective agreement were more likely to perform a risk analysis, but over half of employers were found to be unfamiliar with the requirements of the Labour Safety Law.

About the survey

As part of a project by the Latvian Employers’ Confederation (LDDK) called ‘Practical application of labour relations and work safety normative acts in branches and enterprises’, Inspecta Prevention and TNS Latvia carried out a survey on working conditions and risks in Latvia 2009–2010 (in Latvian, 5.5Mb PDF). The survey received financial support from the European Social Fund and the Latvian government. Aspects covered by the survey included:

• employees’ satisfaction with their job and working conditions;

• compliance with laws and regulations;

• identification and prevention of risk factors in the working environment;

• consequences of failure to observe job safety requirements;

• social dialogue about matters pertaining to labour safety and legal relations;

• awareness of, and instruction in, work safety matters;

• assessment of the performance of the State Labour Inspectorate.

The main objectives of the research were to:

• establish the situation in Latvian enterprises and regions with regard to safety at work;

• draft recommendations for improving the legal basis on safety at work.

A secondary objective was to provide the government with data on the incidence and costs of occupational diseases and accidents (that is, those with an impact on the social security budget).

To reflect changes in working conditions and risks, the survey repeated previous research carried out in 2005–2007.

Methodology

Three different groups participated in the survey:

• 1,044 employers and their representatives;

• 2,505 workers, including 2,378 employees and 127 self-employed persons;

• 210 labour safety specialists.

In addition, research reports and existing databases covering occupational diseases, accidents on the job and their relevant costs were analysed.

Key findings

Employee satisfaction with the job and working conditions

The survey found that employees were more satisfied than self-employed persons (73.9% of employees and 62.3% of self-employed persons were ‘more or less satisfied’ with their present job).

Between 2006 and 2010, the number of satisfied persons only increased among self-employed persons (by 6.2%); among the employed, the number of satisfied persons fell slightly (by 1.1%). However, there was a significant decrease between 2006 and 2010 in the number of employed persons whose chief reasons for feeling job satisfaction were social guarantees (40% in 2006 and 29% in 2010) and a decent salary (38% in 2006 and 23% in 2010), both factors which have been affected by the country’s economic situation.

From the point of view of labour safety, the number of satisfied employees in Latvia increased from 77.2% in 2006 to 83% in 2010. There were more satisfied employees in the public sector (80.4% in 2006 and 87% in 2010) than in the private sector (76% in 2006 and 82.8% in 2010) or in civic organisations (71.2% in 2006 and 79% in 2010).

Observance of laws and regulations

As part of the survey, employers had to rate how well their organisation complied with the requirements of the Labour Safety Law on a 10-point scale, a rating of 10 signifying total compliance and a rating of one signifying total non-compliance.

Although employers rated the situation in 2010 as worse (an average of 7.93) than in 2006 (an average of 8.41), in-depth analysis revealed that more than half of employers in 2010 were not familiar with the requirements of the Labour Safety Law. For example, in 2010 only 41.5% of employers who rated their organisation’s compliance at 9 or 10 on the 10-point scale said they had performed a risk analysis. In 2006, 32.3% of employers made a similar declaration.

The high self-evaluation of compliance with the requirements of the Labour Safety Law was therefore based on insufficient knowledge about work safety requirements (for example, the number of enterprises who performed risk analysis increased from 22.1% in 2006 to 31.4% in 2010 but self-evaluation of compliance decreased by 0.21 points which means that knowledge increase about risks and work safety requirements does not necessarily increase self-evaluation of compliance with the requirements of the Labour Safety Law). It is also worth noting that there is a correlation between the use of collective agreements and risk analysis of the working environment; those organisations that have concluded a collective agreement are more likely to perform a risk analysis (27.1% of those that have agreements and 16.9% of those that do not).

Identifying and preventing risk factors in the working environment

The results revealed that organisations in which employees are engaged in undeclared work perform a risk assessment of the working environment less often but if it is performed it is a much more formal process. In addition, the survey found that worker safety was likely to be better if the enterprise was active in social partnership by belonging to an employers’ organisation.

Social dialogue about matters concerning labour safety and legal relations

The proportion of employers who reported having discussed the results of a risk analysis of the working environment with their employees increased from 14.4% in 2006 to 23.8% in 2010. Over the same period, the number of respondents who were not prepared to join a trade union had increased. The survey data confirms that, at the enterprise level, the most important topics in a social dialogue are matters relating to work safety.

Commentary

The survey revealed a number of shortcomings with regard to the working environment and working conditions in Latvia. These are:

• poor awareness by employers of legal requirements;

• a reduction in the capacity of institutions that are responsible for work safety issues, due to the economic situation;

• lack of resources to carry out necessary measures to ensure worker safety;

• the negative effect of the informal economy;

• underreporting of accidents that occur on the job;

• a low proportion of employers who inform their employees about risk factors in their working environment.

To improve the situation, it is necessary for all relevant institutions and social partners to be involved and to act in concert.

Reference

Latvian Employers’ Confederation (2010), Darba apstākļi un riski Latvijā, 2009–2010 (5.5Mb PDF) [Work conditions and risk in Latvia, 2009–2010], Riga.

Linda Romele, EPC Ltd