Working Environment Survey
March 2000
Introduction
From February 9 to March 15, 2000, Emor Ltd.
carried out a study about working environment in companies'/institutions' that
operate in Estonia.
The study was commissioned by the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
cooperation with the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs. The ownership right
of the survey results belongs to the Client .
The purpose of the survey was to find out
companies'/institutions' representatives assessments to their company's working
environment - to occupational health and occupational safety, but also to get
an overview of employees' assessments. Due to that the survey consists of two
independent sides:
- companies'/institutions'
survey, where employer's assessments to working environment were observed;
- employees' survey,
where employees evaluated different parameters of their working
environment.
Employers' survey was conducted between February 28
to March 07 in 2000. In total 402 companies'/institutions' representatives were
interviewed in different areas of Estonia. The survey method was telephone
interviewing and it was conducted by using computer administrated telephone
interviewing software Ci3 WinCATI.
Employees' survey was conducted on the frame of
Omnibus-type survey in three periods: February 9 to February 16, February 23 to
March 1 and March 8 to March 15 in 2000, in total 797 employees, who were found
by random sampling in different areas of Estonia, responded to the
questionnaire about their working environment.
The first part of the report contains employers
assessments to their company's/institution's working environment and in the
second part have been shown comparatively employees' assessments. The survey
results are presented in the form of graphs and short comments.
The methodology and sample description along with the
fieldwork questionnaire are presented in Appendix.
1. Findings of Employers' Survey
Before we start to look the results of the survey,
we briefly introduce the presentation of the results. As it is known, more than
70% of companies/institutions who operate in Estonia have less than 20
employees. At the same time about one third of inhabitants who work, are
employed in these companies/institutions. When composing the sample of the
survey, non-proportional extract from the sample was made based on the number
of employees, in order to find out, what kind of working environment problems
in general there are in the companies that operate in Estonia and at the same
time that it could be possible to observe bigger companies' group problems and
given assessments to their working environment. It means that on the breakdown
of the main activity and the region, the interviewed companies are in the same
proportion like in the universe, but in case of the breakdown of the number of
employees among the interviewed companies, there are substantially more
companies with bigger number of employees than in the universe of the survey.
When analysing the survey' results of the companies
with different number of employees, the data is presented without weighting.
But the results of the entire Estonia are presented in weighted on the graphs
in different segments.
1.1
Characterization of Companies/ Institutions
Graph 1 shows the
distribution of companies/institutions in Estonia, based on the number of
employees, settlement type, region, foreign ownership/share and on directions
to different markets. The data, according to the number of employees has been
presented in two ways - companies weighted, according to the distribution of
the all Estonia and based on the actual distribution of respondents. In case of
the other parameters the distribution of respondents and companies/institutions
correspond to the register.
Graph 2 shows the
distribution on the breakdown of the main activity. The distribution according
to the activities shows that the sample represents actually
companies-institutions from different field of activities. The number of
respondents (402) does not allow showing the results in the analysis by each
line of businesses. Due to that companies which deal with agriculture,
forestry, hunting and fishery have been unified into primary sector' group and
mining, different processing companies and power engineering to the secondary
sector companies' group. Considering peculiarity of certain fields, then
separately have been pointed out from the secondary sector companies'
construction and transportation-warehousing-communication, but when considering
the responses of these fields' representatives, should be kept in mind that
according to random selection only 24 and 16 companies respectively, were
interviewed. In case of tertiary sector the data processing was conducted
separately in case of trade companies, business- and personal service companies
and education-, culture-, healthcare institution, local and state authorities.
1.2
Attitude towards Arrangements of Their Own Company's/ Institution's Working
Environment
1.2.1
Awareness of the Requirements of the Law of Occupational Health and
Occupational Safety
The Law of Occupational Health and Occupational
Safety has been adopted in Estonia, the law sets certain requirements,
considering already the requirements that are forced in the European Union. Graph 3 shows Estonian
employers' awareness of the requirements to the working environment, set by the
law. Only 5% of all respondents are not aware of the requirements of the law.
Somewhat smaller is the awareness in transportation-warehousing-communication
and business- and personal service companies (9% is not aware).
On the breakdown of the number of employees,
precisely in smaller companies, less than 10 employees, are less aware of the
law (9% is not aware). In the bigger companies 98%-100% of respondents are
aware of the law. In case of the other background characteristics like region,
settlement type and existence of foreign share, there are no big differences
compared to the average awareness of the law.
1.2.2
Working Conditions Compliance to the Requirements of the Law
Respondents were asked to give assessments on a
10-points scale to their company's-institution's working conditions compliance
to the requirements set by the law. The results have been presented on Graph 4.
In case we read assessments between 1-4 points
negative (working conditions in general do not correspond to the requirements
of the law), assessments between 5-6 points an average (appears relevant
deficiencies) and assessments between 7-10 points positive (working conditions
in general correspond to the requirements set by the law), then 79% of
companies' representatives evaluate working conditions in their
companies/institutions in general corresponding to the requirements. Tertiary
sector companies: trade-, business- and personal service companies evaluate
their working condition correspondence to the requirements set by the law more
than the average.
Primary sector companies see more deficiencies in
their working conditions (53% gave assessments between 3-6 points). Also transportation-communication-warehousing
companies gave lower than the average assessments to their companies' working
conditions. Among construction companies the differentiation among the
companies is bigger than in case of the other field of activities - different
companies evaluate their working conditions differently.
Observing companies with different number of
employees, then precisely smaller companies evaluate their working conditions
more corresponding to the requirements set by the law. It is so, because the
field of activity, bigger mobility, later foundation has enabled to take
immediately into consideration contemporary requirements in case of working
condition.
The abovementioned showed respondents' assessments
to their company's working conditions. In addition to that the respondents were
asked if the Estonian National Labor Inspection had inspected their
company/institution and what were the results of the inspecting. Like it could
be seen on graph 5, the Estonian National Labor Inspection has inspected 58% of
companies/institutions that operate in Estonia. As the result of the
inspecting, the National Labor Inspection made dictations to 56% of the
companies, everything was in order in 41% of companies.
More frequently than the average has the Estonian
National Labor Inspection inspected companies, whose respondents evaluated
their working condition less than the average corresponding to the requirements
set by the law. The Estonian National Labor Inspection has inspected 83% of
transportation-communication-warehousing companies and more than 70% of
industrial-, construction- and primary sector companies.
More frequently than the average has the Estonian
National Labor Inspection inspected also companies with bigger number of
employees - 87% of companies with 50-149 employees and 95% of companies with
more than 150 employees, at the same time in case of the companies with less 10
employees the Inspection has inspected 41%.
Taking into consideration that the Estonian
National Labor Inspection has made considerably more dictations to inspected
primary sector companies (to 93% inspected companies), industrial - (80%) and
transportation companies (70%), and less to trade (34%) and the other tertiary
sector companies - 52%, it can be said, that respondents assessments to their
company's/institution's working conditions are principally the same as
inspectors' assessments.
1.2.3
Attitudes towards Improvement of the Working Environment
For explanation, how important interviewed
companies consider working environment role in terms of success, they were
asked to evaluate which of the two statements they favor, either:
A. Good working environment is a presumption to
an effective activity or
B. Working environment is only a background, to
what should be paid attention so much, that it wouldn't inhibit working.
Graph 6 shows the
distribution of respondents according to the favor of their opinion. Like it
could be seen, majority has favored the standpoint: working environment has
been seen as a presumption of successful company, compared to the opinion that
working environment is so important that it wouldn't inhibit working. 80% of
companies, which deal with business and personal service or have foreign share
and 95% of companies with more than 150 employees consider the role of working
environment the first statement more important and favor more frequently than the
average.
39% of interviewed companies have a certain plan of
activities to improve working conditions, 18% of companies/institutions are
composing the plan (graph 7). More frequently than the average is the plan of activities
in composing phase in the primary sector companies (36%), 56% of construction
and 49% of industry companies already have the plan.
The more employees there are in the company, the
more frequently there is or is in composing phase also the plan of activities
to improve working conditions.
At the same time it should be mentioned, that if
there is no plan of activity, it does not mean that working conditions are not
improved according to the plan. In case of 48% of business- and personal
service' companies and 49% of trade companies, the absence of the plan of
activities means also that they have already dealt with working conditions and
everything is in order. At the same time 57% of transportation-, communication-
and warehousing companies do not have a plan of activity to improve working
conditions, it rather shows that there is a space for development in the
attitude level, when considering that respondents gave more negative
assessments to their company's working environment than the average.
Also in companies with smaller number of employees,
may the absence of the plan of activity rather mean, that working conditions
are in order - also smaller companies are regularly later established, they are
operating less in fields, where bigger investments are needed for improving
working environment and they are able to make changes in a shorter period of
time.
The latter can be confirmed by the fact that
smaller companies take into consideration also more employees' proposals when
improving working conditions (graph 8). Bigger companies and from the field of activities -
construction- and primary sector companies can less afford to consider
proposals made by their employees.
1.2.4
Comparison of Working Environment with the Other Companies in the Same Field
Graph 9 gives a
general picture how companies/institutions evaluate their working environment
compared to the other companies in the same field in Estonia. 40% of
interviewed companies evaluate their company's working conditions somewhat
better, 45% affirm it to be in the same level as the average and 8% considers
it worse. Taking into account that practically all activities' companies
assessments are similar, we can affirm that less than a half of companies from
different fields have achieved better results compared to the other companies
in the same field.
Compared to the smaller companies, the bigger
companies and companies with more than 150 employees consider their working
environment better on the frame of the same field of activity in Estonia, even
though the Estonian National Labor Inspection has made more dictations to them.
1.3
Assessments to Different Sides of Company's Working Environment
Above we analysed general assessments to different
sides of company's working environment. Now we will look, how different
parameters of the working environment have been evaluated. The respondents were
asked to give assessments to different sides of their company's/institution's
working environment on a 10-points scale, where 1 means negative and 10 points
positive side. The results have been shown on graph 10 both, in
percentages and on the average assessments.
Mental stress received the most negative assessment
from different sides of working environment. It is understandable as the factor
appears in case of all field of activities and different size of companies,
when at the same time for example physical load of the job or its dangerousness
appears only in case of some field of activities or occupations - first of all
in primary and secondary sector companies. Assessments to working conditions,
design/furniture of the workplace and work related daily living conditions
received less negative assessments - also in this case primary and secondary
sector companies had more problems.
Respondents were asked also to evaluate on a
10-points scale their employees' risk to impair their health at work.
Like it can be see on graph 11, more than two
third of respondents consider the risk to their employees' health sufficiently
low (1-4 points). Primary sector-, construction- and industrial companies'
representatives evaluate the risk to employees' health significantly higher
than the average.
Graph 12 shows
factors that have been evaluated as risk factors to employees' health. 18% of
interviewed companies do not see any risk factor, that would endanger employees
health in their company's/institution's work and working environment. 90% of
these companies belong to tertiary sector.
The most frequently mentioned risk factor that also
endangers health is similarly to the evaluations of the working environment -
mental stress, especially in institutions, business- and personal service and
transportation companies. In the latter ones occurs together with mental stress
also forced position, monotonousness, which in case of transportation companies
was brought out as the most frequent risk factor to employees' health - more
than 60% times.
Trade companies' representatives evaluate imperfect ventilation as more
frequent risk factor (30%), construction companies: physical load (53%),
dust (51%), imperfect ventilation (42%), temperature and noise (39%).
Both industry and primary sector companies
mentioned as the main risk factor to the employees' health - noise (54% and 78%
respectively). In primary sector it occurs together with the danger of
vibration (74%), physical load (68%), fluctuation of temperature (59%) and more
frequently than the average - work monotonousness (47%).
Despite of the fact that companies from different
field of activities evaluate risk factors to employees' health differently,
there are no significant differences in assessments to employees' sickness
problems. Due to that, on graph 13 has been given general picture about the evaluations, how
employees' sicknesses cause problems to employers. Like it can be seen, only
seasonal diseases are problems to companies and in about half of the respondents'
evaluations these diseases bother their activities. Occupational diseases and
the other health problems are bothering factors only for some companies.
In the reality, only some companies have thoroughly
analyzed the current topic - like it could be seen on graph 14, only 8% of
companies have tried to evaluate the economical loss that has been caused by
employees' sicknesses. Bigger companies, with more than 150 employees, have
done it more frequently than the average (19%), but 67% of all of those who
have tried to evaluate that, were not able to give the concrete amount of money
spent in 1999. That is why it is also impossible to estimate companies'
economical loss, caused by employees' sicknesses. Nine companies estimated the
economical loss caused by employees sicknesses approximately 39 000 EEK per one
year.
In addition to the abovementioned sicknesses, also
work related accidents during the last three years were observed in the survey
(graph 15). In
total, in 12% of companies, that operate in Estonia have been taken place
work-related accidents. More frequently than the average the accidents have
appeared in primary sector-, industrial-, construction- and transportation
companies.
Predominantly the reasons of the work-related
accidents have been employee negligence, which has been followed by not
work-related reasons - mainly accidents on the way to work of from work to
home.
1.4
Expenditures on Working Environment
The overview of different type of expenditures made
by companies to their employees and to the working environment is given on graph 16.
On average, each company has made different type of
expenditures during 1999 4,2 times. Majority of companies have made
expenditures on improvement of working- and work-related daily living
conditions and purchase of working clothes and personal protection equipment.
More frequently than the average have made different working environment and
employees-related expenditures primary and secondary sector companies,
including those whose assessments to their company's working environment were
lower than the average.
Graph 17 shows
expenditures made during 1999 by companies'/institutions' that operate in
Estonia, on improvements of working environment in total amount estimation
together with probability limits.
The highest expenditures are related to improvement
of working conditions - with probability of 95% between 1,13-3,06 billion EEK,
it is followed by expenditures on improvement of work-related daily living
conditions - between 0,49-0,72 billion EEK and on working clothes and personal
protection equipment - 0,22-0,4 billion EEK.
Graph 18 shows
different expenditures made by companies in connection with employees' health.
The biggest amounts have been spent on employees' sporting possibilities - with
probability of 95%, 113-215 million EEK, it is followed by almost on the same
level expenditures on health control, occupational health and -safety training
and making of health insurance contracts. The other employees' health related
expenditures are lower.
In total, the expenditures made by
companies'/institutions' for working environment and employees' health-related
factors per one year are with probability of 95% between 3,45-4,47 billion EEK.
Like we can see on graph 16, depending on the type
of expenditures, they apply to 15-81% of companies. Of those companies, who had
not made any certain type of expenditures on working environment or employees'
health-related factors during 1999, were asked how necessary would they
evaluate that the employer makes such kind of expenditures. The results have
been presented on graph 19. Like it can be seen, three-quarter of companies, who did
not make expenditures on improvement of working- and work-related daily living conditions
during the previous year, considered the expenditures necessary. Also
explanation of occupational safety questions to employees was evaluated very
necessary.
1.4.1
Factors that Need Improvements in Working Environment
The respondents were asked to name also concrete
factors that need to be improved in their company's working environment. 44% of
respondents brought out some kind of concrete factors. Findings are presented
on graph 20.
The abovementioned improvements presume relatively
big investments. Respondents gave sums between 2000 EEK up to 20-30 million
EEK. The last one means practically constructing a new building. Considering
partially very approximately given assessments by respondents and also the fact
that 67% of all interviewed companies were not able to name a certain number
that they would spent on making changes in the working environment, it is not
correct to extend the results in order to find out the investment needs of all
companies/institutions that operate in Estonia.
1.5
Arrangement of Working Environment Activities
To find out, who follow the situation of the
working environment, companies' representatives were asked the existence of
different specialists and of this field's labor body in their companies.
The overview of those who deal with working
environment in companies/institutions is given on graph 21. Only in less
than a half of the companies operates working environment representative,
trustee, working environment specialist or working environment council.
In 81% of companies with less than 10 employees is
not operating a person/council who follows or analyzes working environment,
38% of companies with 10-49 employees, 19% of companies with 50-149 employees
and only 3% of companies with more than 150 employees do not have corresponding
specialist or council.
When looking the evaluations of different persons'
efficiency to the improvement of working environment, we can see that only some
companies, where relevant persons' work, estimate their work very efficient and
half up to 2/3 of interviewed companies sufficient. Therefore, the relevant
specialists have not found sufficient employment in their positions.
In addition to specialists who work inside the
company, firms have a possibility to include to working environment analysis
also external, Occupational Healthcare Service' specialist. Relatively few
companies use that possibility - in 1999, 13% of interviewed companies had
ordered external specialist to working conditions analysis (graph 23), but more
frequently than the average this has been done by companies with bigger number
of employees - quarter of companies with 50-149 employees and about half (46%)
of companies with 150 and more employees.
The specialist's help has been mainly used for
conducting workplace risk analysis and consulting companies' in occupational
health and -safety questions (graph 24).
2 Findings of Employees' Survey
The survey was conducted on the frame of Emor
Omnibus-type survey, among 1500 inhabitants of Estonia, who are at the age of
15-74 years. The sample is formed based on the model of inhabitants of Estonia
at the relevant age and is representative on the breakdown of region,
settlement type, gender, age and nationality.
The target group of the survey are inhabitants who
work, because of that, to the questions concerning working environment replied
only those of 1500 people who got to the sample, who worked - in total 797
persons.
2.1
Characterization of Respondents
Due to the reason, that employees' survey is
observed comparatively with the survey conducted in the
companies'/institutions' that operate in Estonia, we will not first of all pay
attention to respondents' social-demographical background, but to the field of
activities and the size of the companies, where they work. In total, among inhabitants
at the age of 15-74 years, 53% of those who got to the sample work, which means
that after the extension to the universe, it appears that 584 500
22000 persons work.
Graph 25 shows the
distribution of inhabitants who are occupied with work among
companies'/institutions' with different field of activities and on graph 26 among different
number of employees. The presented distribution characterizes also the reality,
considering the distribution of occupied inhabitants according to the field of
activities and size of companies.
2.2 Satisfaction with Their
Company's/Institution's Working Environment
The respondents were asked to give assessments to
the satisfaction of different sides of their working environment. The results
are presented on graph 27.
The most satisfied are respondents with relations
between employees, also 30% of respondents were "very satisfied" with
their working hours flexibility. Very satisfied with their company's working
culture and working conditions are 15% and 16% of respondents respectively and
rather satisfied 65% and 61%. This is all employees' evaluation, which
characterizes different companies' employees assessments. When looking at the
assessments of employees who work for companies in different field of
activities and number of employees, then we can say the following:
- With the relations
at work, are above the average satisfied employees who work in
transportation-communication-warehousing companies (47% are very
satisfied). The other rule is that the fewer employees there are in the
company, the better assessments to the relations between employees are
given. 43% of respondents who work for companies with less than 9
employees are very satisfied with the relations at work, in companies
with 10-49 employees 32%, in companies with 50-149employees 24% and in
companies with 150 and more employees only 23%. The percentage of those
who are dissatisfied with the relations at work is the highest in the
group of companies with bigger number of employees - 22% are rather
dissatisfied or are not satisfied at all.
- There are more
employees, who are satisfied with the flexibility of working hours
in business- and personal service companies (41%) and less than the
average in primary sector- (18%), secondary sector- (23%) and
construction companies (20%). The percentage of dissatisfied employees is
the highest in the industrial companies (in total 27%). Depending on the
number of employees, those, who work for smaller companies, evaluate
higher their satisfaction with the flexibility of working hours; it was
similar also in case of the relations at work.
- There are no
important differences in the satisfaction with working culture.
Companies with up to 9 employees are somewhat more satisfied with the
working culture and companies with more than 150 employees less
satisfied.
- Working conditions
is the aspect, where dissatisfaction was higher compared to the
abovementioned parameters. Employees who work in the industrial companies
are more dissatisfied with their working conditions than the average (in
total 33%). Employees from the primary sector companies are compared to
the average more dissatisfied (21%), but among them are relevantly less
employees who are very satisfied with their working conditions (4%). It
is very probably so, because people who work for primary sector companies
have less possibilities to choose among jobs, already because of their
living area. In case of the absence of choice, people don't directly
express their dissatisfaction but the satisfaction with working conditions
remains lower. Depending on the number of employees, there are no
remarkable differences in the satisfaction of working conditions.
Looking at the assessments to the satisfaction of
different factors depending on the position of the respondent in the company -
if she/he is manager, specialist, clerk or worker (skilled- and regular
worker), then less satisfied with working culture, working conditions and also
flexibility of working hours are workers. The exception is relations between
employees; with what are more satisfied especially workers.
In addition to assessments to satisfaction, the
respondents were asked to evaluate also on a 10-points scale different
parameters of their working environment. Working environment parameters are
ranked according to the average assessments and are presented on graph 28. Compared to
employees' and employers' assessments to the same sides of working environment
- their assessments are quite similar. It means, that employers understand quite
well what are the problematic parameters of their working environment.
Looking at managers'/specialists'/clerks'
assessments to especially their job's different sides, then in case of all
parameters, except mental stress, they give more positive assessments than
workers.
Inhabitants who work gave compared to the other
aspects the most positive average assessment to job dangerousness. This
is because the danger at work takes more place only in some sectors, mainly in
transportation-communication-warehousing companies, where 40% of employees
evaluated their job dangerousness with 1-4 points, 34% of industrial-, power
engineering- companies gave 1-4 point assessments and also employees in
construction companies gave somewhat more lower assessments than the average.
Primary sector- and industrial- but also
construction companies' employees gave remarkably more frequently negative
assessments than the average to their working conditions and tertiary
sector employees but also representatives of companies with smaller number of
employees gave more positive assessments.
Work-related daily living conditions in the
workplace have compared to the working
conditions received more negative assessments. 41% of construction, 36% of
industrial- and 29% of primary sector employees gave 1-4 points, it means
negative assessments, to their working conditions. Higher assessments to
working conditions were given by tertiary sector employees, especially it
applies to business- and personal sector companies.
Workplace design/furniture received lower assessments than the average in primary
sector- and secondary sector employees and more positive from employees who
work for tertiary sector. Depending on the number of employees, there were no
substantial differences.
Job influence to the health was the most negatively evaluated by employees who work for
industrial- and transportation-communication-warehousing companies (1-4 points
- 33% and 26% respectively).
Physical difficulties of the job is the biggest problem in primary sector companies (38%
gave 1-4 points), it is followed based on the negative assessments by
industrial- (35%), construction- and transportation-communication-warehousing
companies (30%).
Mental stress
is a working environment factor that has received the most negative assessments
both by employers and employees. It is mainly because if in case of the other
aspects there are more problems in primary and secondary sector companies, then
stress is characteristic to all sectors, but especially strong to those who work
in tertiary sector. Mental stress is the side of the working environment in
case of what negative assessments exceed the relative importance of positive
ones. The bigger the number of employees in the company, the stronger the
employees evaluate the mental stress. It can be the result of the case that, in
smaller companies better relations between employees at work relieve stress.
Graph 29 shows the
factors that cause mental stress to those employees, who said that they have
strong mental stress at work (gave 1-3 points). Like it can be seen, the most
widely spread mental stress causing factors, according to the nature of work
are: dangerousness, big responsibility, communication with clients.
In case of managers/specialists the most frequently
brought out stress caused factors were big responsibility (22%), also
communication with clients and stress caused by the nature of job.
2.1.2
Work Influence to the Health
Respondents were asked to evaluate the risk to get
occupational disease or the other work-related diseases on a 10-points scale.
The findings have been presented on graph
30. Like it can be seen, approximately one third
of the respondents estimate the risk to their health relatively high (7-10
points). It is much more than the number of those, who evaluated the work
influence to the health harmful (21%). Compared to employers' assessments,
employees evaluated risk factor that were caused by their work to their health
higher.
Workers consider the risk to their health the
highest - 40% of all workers evaluate the risk to their health with 7-10
points.
Transportation-, primary sector-, industrial- and construction
companies' employees consider the risk to get occupational or the other
diseases the highest, it is similar to employers assessments.
The risk factors to health, named by respondents,
have been showed on graph 31. Only 15% of employees say that there is no risk
in their job to get work-related diseases. 18% of employers' representatives
told that there is no risk to employees' health in their company. Similarly to
employers' assessments, more frequently than the average evaluated no risk to the
health - business- and personal service companies' (22%) and trade companies'
(19%) employees.
Employees mention more frequently as health
endangering factors mental stress, dust, noise and physical load. The general
picture has been given on graph 31.
According to the field of activities, risk factors
to health are evaluated differently. Based on employees' assessments, we will
give the three most frequently mentioned risk factors to the health in
case of every group of activity and the average number of risk factors named by
that field' employees.
The risk factors to the health are:
- according to primary
sector employees' assessments: physical load (49%), noise (27%),
vibration and temperature (23%) - in total, on average 2,12 different
health endangering factors were mentioned by every working person;
- for
industrial-'/power engineering' employees: noise (53%), dust (49%) and
imperfect ventilation (35%); in total, on average were mentioned 3,16
factors;
- in construction
companies: dust (57%), noise (47%) and physical load (39%) - in total,
2,96 factors;
- in
transportation-warehousing-communication field: physical load (39%),
mental stress (38%), noise (37%) and vibration (37%) - in total 3,03
factors.
- in trade companies:
mental stress (39%), temperature (33%), imperfect ventilation (18%) - in
total 1,9 risk factors;
- in business- and
personal service field: mental stress (42%), imperfect ventilation (21%),
forced position-monotonous (18%) - in total 1,54 risk factors;
- in education,
health-, culture institutions and state and local authorities: mental
stress (58%), lightening, temperature, dust and forced position problems
(all 17%) - in total, on average 1,96 risk factors per every respondent,
who works in that field.
Depending on the position the respondent holds in
the company, also assessments to risk factors are different. Managers,
specialists, but also clerks have from the risk factors certainly on the first
position mental stress (mentioned by 61%-46%), but in case of workers dust,
noise and physical load (43%-38%).
2.1.3
Expectations to the Working Environment
Employees' expectations to working environment are
shown on graph 32. The most frequently has been brought out as the higher
satisfaction assuring factor with the working environment: changes in wage
system and improvement in salary conditions. The other factors have been
mentioned relevantly less by smaller number of employees.
Managers' expectations are more frequently than the
average related to enlargement and repairing of rooms, purchasing up-to-date
equipment, organization of jobs.
2.2
Observation of Working Environment in the Company
2.2.1
Assessments to Employer's Attitude and Activities in Improving Working
Environment
Employees' assessments to how much the employer
pays attention to the working conditions has been given on graph 33. About a half
of the respondents said that employer follows that working conditions were principally
in order, less than a quarter told that the employer tries to ensure as good
working conditions as possible and approximately the same amount of respondents
said that the attention is rather formal or does not exist at all. 33% of
employees who work in industrial companies evaluate employers' activities more
negatively - more formal. Here two so called adverse factors run across -
first, the entire sector, where are more often deficiencies and secondly, there
are more employees in industrial companies.
Compared to the other employees' categories also
workers are more negative in their evaluations to employer's attitude.
Graph 34 shows
arrangements that in employees' estimations have been used in their companies during
the last two years in employer's initiative. 21% of employees were not able to
evaluate, what has been done in their companies during the last two years.
Primary sector employees were more often unaware what had been done in their
companies. There are no differences in exploitation of different arrangements
according to the working status in the company. During the last year the
employers have somewhat more frequently trained/instructed workers in
work-related accidents' questions (55%) and directed them to health control
(40%), but rarer have employers improved workers' working conditions.
Compared to the general picture more attention has
been paid to work-related accidents' questions in transportation- (61%)
and industrial companies' (58%) employees' opinion.
Working conditions have during the last years more frequently improved in
service and public sector companies' employees' opinion (43% and 46%) and less
often in the estimations of primary sector employees (16%).
Health control has been done more frequently to transportation- (54%) and industrial
companies' (40%) employees, rarer to service- (20%), trade- (22%) and primary
sector companies' employees.
Surveys, measurements of the working conditions have been made more frequently in transportation (33%) and
industrial (31%) companies' employees' opinion and remarkably less in primary
sector employees' opinion (12%).
First-aid training has been organized more frequently to transportation
employees (28%) and less often in primary sector (4%).
Health insurance contracts have also been made more frequently to transportation
employees (29%).
From those respondents, whose companies were not
exploited the above mentioned working environment arrangements, were asked in
case of each arrangement their assessments to its' usefulness. The results are
presented on graph 35. Compared to the given average assessments, workers
consider more important organization of measurements, surveys of the working
conditions (38% of respondents consider it very necessary), regular health
control (38%), first-aid training (32%), make health insurance contracts (47%)
and improvement of working conditions in the workplace (51%).
2.2.2
Existence of Persons who Deal with Working Environment Problems in the Company
Employees were asked, if they have a working
environment representative in their company and how she/he fulfils the duties
that have been given to her/him. The results are presented on graph 36. Only a quarter
of employees were aware of the existence of a working environment
representative in their company. 34% of transportation-, 32% of public sector-
and 31% of industrial companies' employees' affirmed that there is a working
environment representative in their company, business- and personal service
companies' employees mentioned less often the existence of working environment
representative in their companies (8%). Based on the number of employees in the
company, those with more than 150 employees mentioned more frequently, that
there is a working environment representative in their company (36%).
From the employees, who were aware of the working
environment representative in their company said that he/she mediates
employees' problems or at least he/she is ready to do it (56%). It means that
considering existence and activities of the representative, he/she actually or
potentially mediates employees' problems only for 14% of employees.
Working environment representative's practically
unimportant role in solving problems can be understood, when looking at whom
employees normally turn to with their working environment related problems.
Like it can be seen on graph 37, the most frequently employees turn to company's manager or
in case of bigger companies to a department manager.
From the working environment survey, conducted by
Emor Ltd. in February-March 2000, appeared:
- 95% of
companies/institutions that operate in Estonia are aware of the Law of
Occupational Health and Occupational Safety. Somewhat less are informed
about the requirements set by the law smaller companies with less than 10
employees, of whom 9% were not aware of the requirements.
- One third of all
companies evaluate their working conditions completely corresponding and
46% generally corresponding to the requirements set by the law. Primary
and secondary sector companies, but also companies with bigger number of
employees give relevantly lower assessments and representatives of
tertiary sector companies evaluated relevantly highly their working
conditions' correspondence to requirements set by the law. This is
affirmed with the fact that according to the respondents, the Estonian
National Labor Inspection has as a result of their inspection, made
dictations especially to the first ones.
- Majority of companies
representatives are of the opinion that good working environment is a
presumption to an effective activity, not a background, to what should be
paid attention so much, that it wouldn't inhibit working. Bigger and
tertiary sector companies are more ensured with the first standpoint.
- Companies with less
than 10 employees evaluate themselves as more employees' suggestions
considering ones.
- Giving assessments to
different sides of the working environment, were the most negative
evaluations given to mental stress that is caused by work, which appears
practically in all field of activities. Physical difficulties of the job,
work influence to health and its dangerousness were brought out as a
negative side in case of their company by 15-18% of respondents. 50% of
primary sector companies considered their job physically difficult and
29% considered their job to be dangerous.
Assessments given by employers to different parameters of the working environment are almost the same in case of employees.
Also employees brought out as the most negative factors - mental stress, 38% of primary sector employees considered their job physically difficult, work-related daily living conditions do not mainly satisfy construction employees (41%) and the work influence to health is evaluated more negatively by transportation-communication and primary sector companies' employees. - 9% of employers
evaluate their employees' risk to impair their health relatively big, but
approximately one third of employees see the risk to the health in their
work. More frequently see skilled- and regular workers the risk to health
in their job. Primary and secondary sector employees consider the risk to
get occupational or the other work-related diseases bigger and tertiary
sector companies smaller. Also the corresponding sectors' companies'
representatives gave similar assessments to the employees' risk to impair
their health.
- A certain risk
factors to the health depend on the field of activity the company
operates and in which position the employee works. Primary- and secondary
sector companies and also their employees see as risk factors more
frequently than the average physical load, noise, dust and vibration, in
case of tertiary sector in both sides' opinion the main risk factor to
the health is mental stress. Mental stress is the most frequently seen
risk factor to the health also by management, specialist and clerks
(46-61%). Workers mentioned dust, noise and physical load (43-38%) as the
most frequent risk factors.
- According to
companies' assessments, occupational diseases and the other employees'
health problems are not bothering problems for them. Only employees'
seasonal diseases bother about a half of companies' work. At the same
time the economical loss, caused by employees' sicknesses, have tried to
estimate only 8% of responded companies, more frequently bigger
companies. The numerical amount was able to mention only 9 companies,
which is 2% of all companies.
- Every employer has
made during the previous year on the average 4,2 different type of
expenditures, which are related to the working environment and employees
health. The most common expenditures are the improvement of working and
work-related living conditions, purchasing of working clothes and
personal protection equipment. More frequently than the average have
primary- and secondary sector companies' made different expenditures to
working environment, it means that these are companies, whose assessments
to their company's working environment were lower.
- Compared to
employers' and employees assessments to different working environment,
employees health and safety related expenditures, then evaluations are in
generally the same in case of directly to employees directed
arrangements, like organizing health control and measurements of the
working conditions, organizing first-aid trainings, making health
insurance contracts. Improvement of working conditions is more than twice
as frequently mentioned by companies than by employees. This is caused by
the fact that working conditions are normally improved either by
departments, offices or even by single rooms, which means that not all
employees are aware of it.
- Total expenditures on
working environment and employees' health during the previous year, have
made by companies'/institutions' with the probability of 95% between
2,4-4,5 billion EEK. The biggest expenditures are related to the improvement
of working environment - 1,13-3,06 billion EEK per year, expenditures on
improvements of work-related living conditions (0,49-0,72 billion EEK)
and working clothes (0,22-0,4 billion EEK). Health-related expenditures
have been the highest on offering sporting possibilities (113-215 billion
EEK per year).
- A half up to
three-quarters of companies, who did not make any kind of expenditures on
working environment, consider this type of expenditures necessary. The
exception is making insurance contracts to employees and purchasing of
working clothes, respectively 35% and 22% of companies who have not made
that kind of expenditures, consider them necessary.
- As a reflection to
the abovementioned things are employees' assessments, according to what
23% of them think that their employer tries to ensure as good working
conditions as possible, in 49% of respondents' opinion their employer
follows that basically everything were in order, according to 19% of
respondents' assessments the attention to the working conditions is
rather formal and 5% think that in their company the employer does not
pay attention to the working conditions. Industrial companies' employees
evaluate their employers' activities more negatively.
- Working environment
specialist, who follows/organizes working environment-related activities,
operates only in 42% of companies, in 5% of them works also working
environment council. Up to 2/3 of respondents evaluates their efficiency
sufficient and only some respondents very big.
- A quarter of
employees were aware of the existence of a working environment
representative in their company. Considering the assessments to the
ability of the representative to mediate employees' problems, then the
representative actually or potentially exists as the mediator of the
problems only for 14% of employees. This is also affirmed by the fact
that to working environment representative or working environment
specialist have turned with their problems in the company only 4% of
employees. The most frequently employees turn to company's manager or in
case of bigger companies to a department manager.
Sample in Case of Companies'/Institutions' Survey
The universe of the survey was composed by the
united database of the Estonian Register of Companies (Eesti Ettevõtteregister)
and Business Register (Äriregister). 28 829 operating companies and
institutions composed the sample.
The distribution of companies was planned
proportionally on the breakdown of areas (Tallinn, the other parts of Estonia)
and activity sectors (primary sector, secondary sector and tertiary sector). On
the breakdown of employees non-proportional extract was used, the purpose of
this was to get analysis also from bigger companies group.
To receive a general picture, weighting was used
for different distributions based on the number of employees in the sample.
Fieldwork in Case of Companies'/ Institutions' Survey
The fieldwork was carried out from February 28 to
March 07 in 2000, by using computer administrated telephone interviewing
software Ci3 WinCATI, that follows the usage of sample and direction of
interviews. 4 Emor Ltd. interviewers carried out the fieldwork. The average
length of an interview was 14,9 minutes.
Total of 1000 dials were made, 974 different phone
numbers were dialed at least once. From what:
- 402 successful
interviews were conducted;
- 14 - refused from an
interview;
- 40 - required person
was not available during the fieldwork period;
- 404 - no contact was
made (phone busy, no answer);
- 78 - the number did
not belong to the company, mentioned in the sample;
- 36 - quota was full.
The respondent was the person, who is responsible
of occupational health or occupational safety in the company - either working
environment specialist or chief general manager
Sample in Case of Employees' Survey
The universes of Omnibus-type surveys are formed of
the permanent residents of the Republic of Estonia at the age of 15 - 74,
1 102 842 people in total, as of January 1st, 1999.
The sample size is 500 (504) persons. The current
survey was conducted on the frame of Omnibus-type survey in three periods, the
sample was in total 1500 persons.
The sample is formed as self-weighting, i.e. that
the proportional model of the universe where all the respondents represent the
equal number of people in the universe, is used. To check the formed sample its
socio-demographic structure, on the breakdown of gender, age, nationality and
area of living is compared to the corresponding statistical data of the
universe and if necessary, the data are weighed to ensure the representibility
of the sample.
Sample Design and Actual
and Weighted Distribution
Fieldwork
in case of Employees' Survey
The interviews were conducted by using computer
assisted personal interview (CAPI) method.
In case of a CAPI interview the questions of a
questionnaire are on a lap top screen and answers are typed in promptly.
Filters and rotations are pre-programmed, minimizing the possible mistakes in
the questioning process.
In case of each three interviewing period, 38 Emor
Ltd. interviewers who had undergone a special training carried out the
fieldwork.
To interview 1500 people, the total number of
contacts made is 2983, of which:
The above
mentioned sample and survey description characterizes how the entire Omnibus
type surveys' target group - respondents at the age of 15-74 years - has been
found. The purpose of the current survey was to interview only those
inhabitants, who work. Therefore, only those respondents at the age of 15-74 in
the randomly selected families, who worked, answered to the questions about
working environment. There were 797 people out of 1510 respondents or 53% who
corresponded to the requirements.
SPSS for Windows ver. 6.1 was used for data
processing in case of both surveys.
Assessments
of the Findings Reliability Limits
All respondents' (800 people) assessments maximum
error, in case of random sampling, cannot exceed ±3,5% in 95% reliability
limits.
If a smaller target group is under observation then
in the use of the results a bigger possible maximum sampling error should be
taken into account, which does not exceed±10% when 100 respondents represent
the target group. The table with the results reliability limits is presented
below.
Proportional Assessment
Maximum Error on 95% Reliability Level in case of Random Sampling
|
Division of respondents (magnitude)/ Sample size |
50% |
45% 55% |
40% 60% |
35% 65% |
30% 70% |
25% 75% |
20% 80% |
15% 85% |
10% 90% |
5% 95% |
|
10 |
31,0% |
30,8% |
30,4% |
29,6% |
28,4% |
26,8% |
24,8% |
22,1% |
18,6% |
13,5% |
|
30 |
17,9% |
17,8% |
17,5% |
17,1% |
16,4% |
15,5% |
14,3% |
12,8% |
10,7% |
7,8% |
|
50 |
13,9% |
13,8% |
13,6% |
13,2% |
12,7% |
12,0% |
11,1% |
9,9% |
8,3% |
6,0% |
|
75 |
11,3% |
11,3% |
11,1% |
10,8% |
10,4% |
9,8% |
9,1% |
8,1% |
6,8% |
4,9% |
|
100 |
9,8% |
9,8% |
9,6% |
9,3% |
9,0% |
8,5% |
7,8% |
7,0% |
5,9% |
4,3% |
|
150 |
8,0% |
8,0% |
7,8% |
7,6% |
7,3% |
6,9% |
6,4% |
5,7% |
4,8% |
3,5% |
|
200 |
6,9% |
6,9% |
6,8% |
6,6% |
6,4% |
6,0% |
5,5% |
4,9% |
4,2% |
3,0% |
|
300 |
5,7% |
5,6% |
5,5% |
5,4% |
5,2% |
4,9% |
4,5% |
4,0% |
3,4% |
2,5% |
|
400 |
4,9% |
4,9% |
4,8% |
4,7% |
4,5% |
4,2% |
3,9% |
3,5% |
2,9% |
2,1% |
|
500 |
4,4% |
4,4% |
4,3% |
4,2% |
4,0% |
3,8% |
3,5% |
3,1% |
2,6% |
1,9% |
|
600 |
4,0% |
4,0% |
3,9% |
3,8% |
3,7% |
3,5% |
3,2% |
2,9% |
2,4% |
1,7% |
|
700 |
3,7% |
3,7% |
3,6% |
3,5% |
3,4% |
3,2% |
3,0% |
2,6% |
2,2% |
1,6% |
|
800 |
3,5% |
3,4% |
3,4% |
3,3% |
3,2% |
3,0% |
2,8% |
2,5% |
2,1% |
1,5% |
Those participating in and responsible for
different stages of the survey:
|
Client's Representatives: |
Milvi Jänes, Liia Vaarmann |
|
Survey Plan and Report: |
Auni Tamm, Kristina Randver |
|
Sample Design: |
Helje Proosa |
|
CATI Questionnaire Programmer: |
Kai Paap |
|
CAPI Questionnaire Programmer: |
Mare Lepik |
|
Fieldwork Co-ordination: |
Birgit Hanson, Anu Ilves |
|
Data Processing: |
Kai Paap, Aivar Felding |
|
Graphs: |
Elvin Heinla, Kristina Randver |
|
Translation into Russian: |
Maria Repkina |
|
Translation into English |
Kristina Randver |
|
Contact Information: |
|
|
Phone: |
(2) 626 8500 |
|
Fax: |
(2) 626 8501 |
|
E-mail (dir.): |
auni@emor.ee |
|
E-mail: |
emor@emor.ee |
|
Address: |
Ahtri 12, VI floor, 10151 Tallinn |
Questionnaires
Graphics
|
Characterisation of Companies / Institutions |
|
|
Characterisation of Companies / Institutions |
|
|
Awareness of Requirements of the Law of Occupational Health and Occupational Safety |
|
|
Companies` Working Conditions Compliance with the Law of Occupational Health and Safety |
|
|
Inspection of the Estonian Labour Inspection. Results of Inspection of the Estonian National Labour Inspection |
|
|
The Importance of Working Environment for Company |
|
|
Existence of a Plan of Activities to Improve Working Conditions |
|
|
Consideration of Proposals Made by Employees |
|
|
Comparison of Working Environment with the Other Companies in Estonia in the Same Field |
|
|
Assessments to Different Sides of Companies` Working Environment |
|
|
Employees` Risk to Impair Their Health at Work |
|
|
Factors that Endanger Employees` Health |
|
|
Employees` Sickness as a Problem |
|
|
Evaluation of Economical Loss Caused by Sicknesses |
|
|
Appearance of Work Related Accidents During the Last 3 Months. Reasons of work related accidents. |
|
|
Expenditures Made for Employees During the Last Year |
|
|
Expenditures on Improvements of Working Environment (millions EEK) |
|
|
Sums Spent on Employees` Health-related Risk Factors (millions EEK) |
|
|
Assessments to the Importance of Working Environment and Health-related Expenditures |
|
|
Factors that Need Improvements in Working Environment |
|
|
In the company . . . |
|
|
Assessments to Corresponding Occupation / Person Efficiency |
|
|
Inclusion of Occupational Health Service or -Specialist into Working Condition Analysis |
|
|
In What Field Occupational Health Service / Specialist has Helped |
|
|
Distribution of Inhabitants Occupied with Work Among Companies with Different Field of Activities |
|
|
How Many Employees Work for Your Company / Institution ? |
|
|
How Satisfied are You with Different Sides of Your Working Environment ? |
|
|
Assessments to Company` s Working Environment Different Sides |
|
|
Factors That have Caused Mental Stress |
|
|
Employees` Risk to Impair Their Health at Work |
|
|
Factors that Endanger Employees` Health |
|
|
Expected Changes in Working Environment |
|
|
Paying Attention to Working Conditions |
|
|
Exploitation of Arrangements for Improvement of Working Conditions |
|
|
Assessments to Importance of Different Arrangements |
|
|
Existence of Working Environment Representative, who Represents Employees` Interests |
|
|
To Whom Usually Employees Turn with Their Problems |