*ETUI-Viktor Kempa 28 results

"Dans les débats syndicaux, les systèmes de gestion de la santé et de la sécurité au travail suscitent des réactions extrêmement variées allant du rejet indigné à l'enthousiasme. Et pour cause, ce concept "est utilisé pour décrire toutes sortes de pratiques, allant de l'amélioration continue et ambitieuse dans la poursuite de l'objectif utopique du risque zéro dans le domaine de la santé au travail aux écrans de fumée des entreprises pour contrôler les travailleurs et démanteler les syndicats", avertissent Kaj Frick (Université Mälardalen) et Viktor Kempa (ETUI) dès les premières lignes du rapport. Le rapport dresse un panorama de ce "marché" en expansion. Il distingue notamment les systèmes de gestion émanant des entreprises privées de ceux promus par les autorités nationales, dont le plus connu et controversé est le programme de protection volontaire des États-Unis. Les auteurs insistent cependant sur le fait que le modèle de gestion est moins important que l'interprétation qui en est faite et sa mise en oeuvre dans les entreprises. Ils réfutent notamment l'idée selon laquelle les systèmes obligatoires de gestion (publics) seraient bons et les systèmes de gestion facultatifs (généralement privés) seraient nécessairement mauvais. Mais si les systèmes de gestion peuvent inciter les employeurs à s'engager au regard de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, les auteurs regrettent qu'ils "semblent conçus pour prévenir les risques d'accident plutôt que les risques pour la santé à long terme"."

"In the course of trade union debates, occupational health and safety management systems elicit extremely varied responses, running from indignant rejection to enthusiasm. Understandably, because the term "is used to describe all kind of practices. It can cover anything from ambitious continuous improvements towards the utopian goal of no health risks at work, to corporate smokescreens for con*trolling workers and busting unions", caution Kaj Frick (Mälardalen University) and Viktor Kempa (ETUI) in the opening lines of the report. The report surveys this booming "market", distinguishing management systems devised by private firms from those promoted by national authorities, the best known and most controversial being the US Voluntary Protection Program.
The authors nevertheless stress that the type of management system is less important than how it is interpreted and put into practice in workplaces. Specifically, they demolish the argument that mandatory (public) management systems are inherently good and optional (usually private) management systems are automatically bad. But much as they may prompt employers to engage with health and safety at work, the authors take issue with these management systems for "seeming to look more for accident risks than for long-term health risks"."

"This handbook aims to give an overview of the EU institutions and procedures involved in regulating health and safety at work, and the role of trade unions in relation to it. Depending on where their interests lie and what they already know about a given issue, readers can choose to explore the structure and organisation of the EU, ways in which trade unions can have an influence, or specific national examples.

The EU rules on health and safety at work derive from the EU Treaty and the directives that are drawn up on the basis of the Treaty. As well as these, there are technical standards, recommendations, guidance documents and communications, etc. The handbook focuses on the most important ones.

It also focuses on a few key aspects of the EU social dimension. The main thing to remember is that the information that comes out of the European Commission on the social dimension is just as important as the proposals for new directives, because it represents an invitation to the member countries and their citizens to take part in the discussion on developing the EU's social agenda."