A comparative analysis - ArchiDok · 2006-07-10 · This report is available in electronic format...

Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland. - Tel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 - Fax: 282 42 09 / 282 64 56e-mail: [email protected] - website: www.eurofound.eu.int

Working conditions surveys

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

This report is available in electronic format only

Introduction

Comparative analysis of the technical characteristics ofthe surveys

Comparative analysis of the questionnaires

Conclusions

Annex

A comparative analysis

For full Contents page click here

1

Contents

Introduction

Comparative analysis of the technical characteristics of the surveys

Framework of the working conditions surveys

Development of the survey

Cross-section and longitudinal studies

Frequency

Population

The business owner or representative as the source of information

Employee and company selection criteria

Sampling strategy

Data gathering

Access to the survey information

Comparative analysis of the questionnaires

Analysis of the questionnaires addressed to employees

Company information

Employee information and labour history

Employment conditions

Work time

Physical environment factors

Organisation of work

Occupational risk prevention

Damage to health

Analysis of the questionnaires addressed to employers

Company data

Working conditions


Damage to health

Conclusions

Annex: Data sheets of the surveys analysed

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2003

1

The general objective of this report is to awaken the interest of the research community in surveys of working conditions,and to illustrate how a variety of working conditions surveys are conducted in different European and other industrialisedcountries.

In this case, priority has been given to a descriptive analysis of the surveys, and a value judgement has not been madeon whether these procedures, tools or content are more or less suitable. The discussion of advantages and disadvantagesis a perspective that could be applied to future studies.

The main interest lay in the frequency with which certain aspects or characteristics are repeated in the surveys analysedbut, in many cases, it was considered more important to identify the different strategies used to solve problems whichare common to the different studies.

The background for this study dates back to July 2001, when the European Foundation for the Improvement of Livingand Working Conditions announced its interest in financing an analysis of the national working conditions surveys beingconducted in the European Union. Every five years, the Foundation conducts a working conditions survey in the MemberStates of the European Union. This survey was conducted in 1990/91, 1995 and 2000. Similar data collection systemsexist on a national scale in Europe and other industrialised countries (Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States).

Accessing the data provided by these systems could provide essential information to the Foundation, and also to researchorganisations, institutions, universities, social agents and those who are interested in an in-depth knowledge of workingconditions.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Hygiene (Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo -INSHT) was commissioned by the Foundation to perform the analysis in October 2001. INSHT is part of the SpanishMinistry of Labour and Social Affairs and is the state technical body responsible for occupational safety and health. Oneof its primary objectives is to analyse working conditions in Spain and provide support for their improvement.

Scope of study

It was decided at the outset that, in order to be included, surveys would have to be of:

a) national or international scale,

b) centred on working conditions,

c) multi-sectoral,

d) conducted periodically.

In terms of geographical coverage, the objective was to cover 29 countries in total: EU-15, the 10 EU acceding countriesand the USA, Australia, Canada and Japan. In fact, institutions in 25 countries responded to the requests of INSHT forinformation and documentation regarding national surveys and a total of 51 surveys were identified.

The specific analysis described in the following sections is centred on the 18 surveys which complied with all therequirements established for the project.

The table below shows a list of all the surveys, and the institution responsible, by country. The surveys are highlightedin bold which comply with the requirements established for the project, and which are compared in this study.

Introduction


1

2

Table 1: List of surveys obtained, by country



COUNTRY SURVEYS INSTITUTION Working Conditions 1999 - Supplementary Programme of Austrian Mikrozensus Statistics Austria

Austria Working time arrangements 1997 - Supplementary Programme of Austrian Mikrozensus Statistics Austria

Workplace and Employee Survey 1999 (WES) Statistics Canada Social and Health Survey (ESS) Institut de la statistique du Québec Canada Quebec’s survey on workers’ health and their environment of work (EQSTREME) Institut de la statistique du Québec

Czech Republic Working Conditions in the Czech Republic in 2000 Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs

Denmark The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2000 (DWECS) The National Institute of Occupational Health

Working Environment Survey 2000 Ministry of Social Affairs Working Life Barometer Finnish Ministry of Labour

Estonia Living Conditions Survey (Northern Baltic countries, NORBALT)

Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science (Norway) Ministry of Social Affairs (Estonia), University of Tartu (Estonia)

Work and Health Survey 2000 Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Working Life Barometer Finnish Ministry of Labour The Quality of Work Life Survey Statistics Finland

Finland

The Gender Barometer Statistics Finland and the Council for Equality Working Conditions 1998 (CT) Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité

Organisational and Technical Innovations (COI) Scientific Direction and Co-ordination: Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi France

Health and Working Conditions (SUMER) Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité

Germany BIBB/IAB-Survey (1998-99) Federal Institute for Vocational Training Affairs (BIBB)/ Institute for Employment Research (IAB) Germany

The German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) The German Institute for Economic Research (DIW)

Greece Working and health conditions of sandblasters and painters in the shipyards of Perama, Attica

Hellenic Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (ELINYAE)

Ireland Survey of Lifestyle Attitudes and Nutrition (SLAN) Centre for Health Promotion Studies, National University of Ireland, Galway

Italy Features and Quality of Work in Italy (2002) ISFOL- Istituto per lo sviluppo della formazione professionale dei lavoratori

Industrial Safety Health: - Survey on State of Employee’s Health - Survey on Technological Innovation and Labour - General Survey on Prevention of Industrial

Accidents in the Construction Industry - Basic Survey on Industrial Safety Health - Survey on Labour Environment

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Japan

Survey on Industrial Accidents Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

Living Conditions Survey (NORBALT) Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science (Norway) Central Statistical Bureau (Latvia) Latvia

Working Life Barometer Finnish Ministry of Labour

3


Table 1: List of surveys obtained, by country (cont.)


COUNTRY SURVEYS INSTITUTION

Living Conditions Survey (NORBALT) Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science (Norway) Ministry of Labour and Social Security (Lithuania) Lithuania

Working Life Barometer Finnish Ministry of Labour

Luxembourg The State of Occupational Safety and Health in Europe – Pilot Study

Comité consultatif pour la sécurité, de l'hygiène et de la santé sur le lieu de travail (CCSHST-LU)

TNO Working Situation Survey 2000 (TAS) TNO Work & Employment Netherlands

Continuous Quality of Life Survey (POLS) Statistics Netherlands (CBS)

Survey on Workers' Working Conditions (1999-2000) DETEFP - Ministério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade (MTS)

National Health Survey Ministry of Health, National Institute of Health, National Observatory of Health

Work Organisation to Occupational Health: Conditions of professional activity analysis in textile and clothing sector- the female work specificity

Faculty of Psychology and Education at the University of Porto

Portugal

Professional Exposure to Chemical Agents in Foundry Industry Portuguese Foundry Association

Questionnaire of Actual Availability Institute for Occupational Health Slovenia

Safety statement with Risk Assessment - Check List Institute for Occupational Health

National Working Conditions Survey 1999 (ENCT) The Spanish National Institute for Health and Safety (INSHT), Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Spain

Quality of Working Life Survey (ECVT) Subdirección General de Estadísticas Sociales y Laborales. Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales

Working Environment Survey (2001) Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) Sweden

Work Related Health Problems Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) United Kingdom Self-reported Working Conditions in 1995 (SWC95) Health and Safety Executive (HSE)

National Occupational Exposure Survey 1981-1983 (NOES)

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Quality of Work Life Survey (QWL) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) USA

Farm Family Health and Hazard Surveillance Study (FFHHS)

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Europe European Working Conditions Survey 2000-2001 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Europe The European Union Labour Force Survey (2001) (LFS) EUROSTAT

1The authors are grateful for the support provided for this project from Portugal and would especially like to thank the manyinstitutions and organisations which provided information on different surveys conducted in the country but which, because of theirrestricted nature, do not appear on this list. The authors are grateful for the information and documentation provided, among others,by the CEVALOR Association; Associaçâo Portuguesa dos Industriais de Calçado, Componentes, Artigos de Pele e seusSucedâneos (APICCAPS) and the Centro Tenológico do Calçado (CTC); Centro Tecnológico da Cerâmica e do Vidro (CTCV);Hospiteis de Universidade de Coimbre and IDICT.

1

4

This text consists of the following sections:

A comparative analysis of the technical characteristics of the surveys.

A comparative analysis of the questionnaires used in the selected surveys, distinguishing between questionnairesaddressed to employees and questionnaires addressed to employers.

Conclusions reached from the analysis performed.

A series of data sheets in the annex give detailed descriptions and references for each of the main surveys that wereselected for analysis.



5

The information on the characteristics of the surveys covered was obtained from a questionnaire sent to the institutionsconducting surveys of interest in the different countries included in the study. The questionnaire was sent in January2002.

This questionnaire, completed by the institutions, provided information on the following aspects:

General survey information: name, institution and type of institution responsible, country, year of each edition, yearof the next edition, coordinators.

Survey objectives.

Characteristics of the universe or population.

Population size and sample size.

Sampling strategy.

Type of interview: personal, telephone, etc.

Place of the interview: workplace, home, etc.

Interview addressed to: workers, managers/business owners, workers’ representatives in the company, the entirepopulation, etc.

Working conditions indicators included in the survey: prevention organisation, workplace design, exposure tophysical agents, exposure to chemical agents, exposure to biological agents, occupational safety, physical burden,mental burden, aspects of the organisation of work, social atmosphere, health, etc.

Products derived from the survey: bibliographical references and websites, nature of and access to the information(raw data, questionnaire, etc.).

Whenever possible, this data was enlarged with the additional documentation provided by the different institutions andthe information related to the subject on their websites. This section analyses all this information.

The 18 surveys analysed are:

Austria: Working Conditions 1999 - Supplementary Programme of Austrian Mikrozensus

Canada: Workplace and Employee Survey 1999 (WES)

Czech Republic: Working Conditions in the Czech Republic 2000

Denmark: The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2000 (DWECS)

Estonia: Working Environment Survey 2000

Finland: Work and Health Survey 2000

France: Working Conditions 1998 (CT)

Germany: Germany BIBB/IAB-Survey (1998-99)

Comparative analysis of the technicalcharacteristics of the surveys


2

6

Italy: Features and Quality of Work in Italy (2002)

Japan: Industrial Safety Health

Netherlands: TNO Working Situation Survey 2000 (TAS)

Portugal: Survey on Workers’ Working Conditions (1999-2000)

Spain: National Working Conditions Survey 1999 (ENCT)

Sweden: Working Environment Survey (2001)

United Kingdom: Self-reported Working Conditions in 1995 (SWC95)

USA: National Occupational Exposure Survey 1981-1983 (NOES)

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions: European Working Conditions Survey2000-2001 (EWCS)

Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science: Living Conditions Survey 1999 (NORBALT II)

Although the analysis of the technical characteristics of the survey was centred on the above surveys (which will bereferred to as the ‘analysed surveys’ or ‘selected surveys’), mention is made of other surveys that were received, whererelevant.

Framework of the working conditions surveys

The first aspect distinguishing the working conditions surveys is the system of occupational surveys in each country.Most of the working conditions surveys are independent from other national studies but, in some cases, the survey is partof a system or block of surveys.

Some national working conditions surveys are conducted as a supplement to the European Labour Force Survey (LFS)conducted for each country. They are usually special questionnaires which are added to the main LFS

2questionnaire,

and which are applied to the workers concerned (sampling unit). This integration, according to the information providedby the institutions responsible for some of these surveys, and alongside other advantages, allows them to combine theresults of several studies. It brings together a large body of statistical material which they are able to sub-divide and thusanalyse the work force under a larger number of categories.

The working conditions surveys analysed here which are included as a special module or addition to another broadernational survey are:

Austria - Both the Working conditions and Working time arrangements surveys are special modules of the AustrianMikrocensus quarterly survey.

Sweden - The Working Environment Survey is conducted as a complementary survey to the Labour Force Surveysconducted by Statistics Sweden (SCB).



2The European Labour Force Survey (LFS) conducted in the Member States of the European Union is an enquiry designed to obtaininformation on the labour market and related issues. Remember that the last regulation of this survey lays down that ad hocmodules (on subjects concerning the labour market) may be added to the main questionnaire in an agreed quarter.

7


France - The Working Conditions survey is a module of the employment survey of the Institut National de laStatistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE).

United Kingdom3

- The Self-Reported Working Conditions survey conducted by the HSE in 1995 is a module of theOffice for National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus Survey.

Estonia - The Working Environment Survey (2000) survey was conducted as part of an Omnibus type survey.

In other cases, the working conditions survey is of an international nature. It follows the same methodological criteriaand is conducted at the same time in different countries, so it is possible to perform a comparative analysis between thecountries involved. This is the case for the European Working Conditions Survey; this survey is conductedsimultaneously in the 15 Member States of the European Union.

The Living Conditions Survey (NORBALT) is also of an international nature, although it covers a much smallergeographical area, and allows for a comparative study between countries. This survey was conducted simultaneously inEstonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the autumn of 1994 and 1999.

Development of the survey

Analysis of the working conditions surveys provided evidence of different ways of approaching the study of workingconditions. Three systems emerge: fixed system, semi-fixed system and cyclical system.

The fixed system consists of analysing working conditions with a certain tool (questionnaire or questionnaires) whichhas a more or less constant structure for the different editions of the survey. This system allows for cross-section studies,in which the variables under study are evaluated at a certain moment in time; and longitudinal studies, in which the studycovers a certain period in time. Most of the surveys analysed can be classified within this fixed system.

The semi-fixed system consists of using a tool made up of two blocks: one relative constant theme block and anotherblock the subject of which varies in the different edition, depending on the need to perform an in-depth analysis ofdifferent aspects of working conditions. This variable block may or may not be repeated in subsequent editions of thesurvey.

None of the surveys analysed exactly follows the semi-fixed system. One that is similar to this model is the GermanBIBB/IAB-Survey. The four editions of this survey include questions related to occupational risks and job requirements,and they each also refer to a different specific issue (the effects of computerisation, a comparison of working conditionsin East and West Germany after re-unification, etc.).

It is difficult to refer to a ‘fixed’ part or parts of the German survey because, according to the institution concerned, ‘wehave discussed the whole questionnaire each time, when we prepared the next survey, in order to improve the questions.So not much has been left unchanged over the period of 20 years. Also the questions on working conditions have notbeen exactly the same. The comparison over time has not been our most important principle.’


3The Labour Force Survey was also the means used when the HSE asked for a ‘trailer’ questionnaire in 1990, as part of a continuingprogramme to develop its information on work-related illness. This study asked adults in a representative sample of households inEngland and Wales whether they felt they had suffered from any illness or condition caused or made worse by their work.

8

The difficulty of keeping the entire questionnaire stable in different editions is shared by the people responsible for manysurveys which fall within the fixed system

4.

Of all the surveys received, the survey which most clearly falls within the semi-fixed system is the Finnish Working LifeBarometer. The people responsible for the survey state that, ‘there are two sections in the study: 1) a permanent section,which does not change, and 2) a flexible section, which reflects topical debate and also fulfils changing needs of manyinterested parties.’

The cyclical system refers to surveys which, although the basic method remains unaltered, develop in each edition adifferent topic related to working conditions. The final result is, in practice, different periodical surveys.

The Industrial Safety Health survey conducted in Japan follows the cyclical model. This annual survey consists of five‘sub-surveys’, each of which is specifically related to one aspect of working conditions. The complete series is repeatedperiodically. Table 2 outlines the process.

Table 2: Development of the Japanese Industrial Safety Health Survey

Cross-section and longitudinal studies

Nearly all the studies analysed are periodical cross-section studies that analyse the frequency of certain aspects relatedto working conditions and health at a certain moment in time. However, in some cases, the investigation includes alongitudinal study, as well as a cross-section analysis.

This is applicable to the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study (DWECS). This survey contains information on over10,000 adults in Denmark, most of which have been monitored since 1990. With DWECS, it is possible to: a) performa cross-sectional analysis of the frequency of occupation exposure and impact on health, and b) monitor the associationbetween occupational exposure and its effects.

The Canadian Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) was prepared in 1999 with the aim of providing a longitudinalfollow-up. According to the information available on the survey, ‘the employer sample is longitudinal - the sampledlocations will be followed over time, with the periodic addition of samples of new locations to maintain a representative



4Although a comparison over time is important for other working conditions surveys, such as the Spanish and European surveys,for instance, in practice it is difficult not to alter the structure and content of the questionnaires.

Surveys included in the Industrial Safety Health survey Conducted in To be conducted in

Survey on State of Employee’s Health 1992 1997 2002

Survey on Technological Innovation and Labour 1993 1998 2003

Survey on Prevention of Industrial Accidents in the Construction Industry 1994 1999 2004

Basic Survey on Industrial Safety Health 1995 2000 2005

Survey on Labour Environment 1996 2001 2006

9


cross section. Employees will be followed for two years only, due to the difficulty of integrating new employers into thelocation sample as workers change companies. ... This longitudinal aspect will allow researchers to study both employerand employee outcomes over time in the evolving workplace.’

This dual dimension also exists in the new survey to be conducted by the Institute de la Statistique du Québec,commencing in 2003. The Québec survey on workers’ health and their environment of work (EQSTREME) intends toperform, in addition to a cross-section study, a longitudinal study on over half the total sample (in other words, over7,000 workers will be monitored). The population of the longitudinal study will consist of two sub-groups, as describedby the institution responsible for the project: ‘The population of the longitudinal study will be integrated by two sub-populations, one group of risk (exposed to recognised hazardous working conditions) and another group representing thegeneral population. The longitudinal study will cover a 10-year period and will be characterised by a gathering phaseevery other year in order to have a better knowledge of the occupational history of workers and, also, to keep contactwith them. Occupational health-related questions will be gathered by face-to-face interviews in the first year, in thefourth year and in the tenth year.’

As indicated in the information provided on this survey, the data from the longitudinal study will be used to calculatecertain causal associations which cannot be identified from cross-section studies. It is specifically stated that the datafrom the longitudinal study will be used to calculate the risk of illness attributable to certain aspects of work organisationor labour conditions. The analysis of the morbidity observed in the groups exposed and not exposed to these aspects willdetermine, for each aspect, the relative risk of cardiovascular disease, mental health problems and musculo-skeletaldisorders. It will also be possible to evaluate the effect of an increase or reduction of the exposure on the incidence andconsequences of these health problems.

Frequency

The earliest of the national working conditions surveys analysed took place in the 1970s. The United States NationalOccupational Hazard Survey (NOHS)

5, conducted in 1972-1974, is the oldest (see Table 3).

In Europe, the first surveys appear in the late 1970s. The French survey (1978), the German survey (1979) and theAustrian survey (1980) are the first in the field. Other European countries become active in the 1980s, such as Spain(1987) and Sweden (1989). The European Survey began in 1990, the same year as the surveys in Denmark and Portugal.The other national surveys that were studied date from the following years; the most recent being the Italian survey,which was created in 2002.


5The continuation of this survey is the National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES), conducted in 1981-1983 and analysed inthis report.

10

Table 3: Frequency of the working conditions surveys analysed

Twelve of the 17 surveys studied have been conducted more than once in their respective countries. The data availableindicates that most working conditions surveys are conducted with regular frequency.

While some surveys are repeated annually (true for Canada and Japan6), others are conducted every two years (such as

the Swedish survey), every three years (such as Finland), every four years (such as the Spanish survey), every five years(Denmark, and the European and NORBALT surveys), every six years (Germany) and even every seven years (France).

The frequency of the Austrian survey is more irregular. To date it has been conducted at intervals of three to six years,and the date of the next edition had yet to be established at the time of research. The United States survey, although theoldest analysed, has only been conducted on two occasions, with a seven year interval (1972-74 and 1981-83). Its nextedition was scheduled for 2003.

Five surveys have only been conducted once. A second edition is scheduled for some of them but, in some cases,continuity has not been confirmed. At the time of research, new editions were shortly to be conducted in the Netherlands(conducted in 2000, with a second edition scheduled for 2002), Portugal (conducted in 1999-2000 and also scheduledfor 2002), the United Kingdom (conducted in 1995 and scheduled for 2004). A second edition of the Czech Republicsurvey conducted in 2000 was not planned. No information was received regarding the survey conducted in Estonia.



1st edition Editions Next edition Approximate frequency Austria 1980 5 Not yet fixed Variable Canada 1999 - (Longitudinal study) Annual Czech Republic 2000 1 No forecast - Denmark 1990 3 2005 Every five years Estonia 2000 1 - European Survey 1990-91 3 2005 Every five years Finland 1994-95 3 2003 Every three years France 1978 4 2005 Every seven years Germany 1979 4 2004/5 Every six years Italy 2002 1 - - Japan 1992 - Annual NORBALT 1994 2 2004 Every five years Netherlands 2000 1 2002 - Portugal 1999-2000 1 2002 - Spain 1987 4 2002 Every four years Sweden 1989 7 2003 Every two years United Kingdom 1995 1 2004 - USA 1972-74 2 2003 Variable

6The Japanese survey, which was described as cyclical in the previous section, can be classified as annual, even though each ‘sub-survey’ is conducted every five years.

11


Population

The definition of the population of the study varies among the surveys. Before analysing the variables involved in theprocess of defining the population, it is useful to identify the subjects of the studies and the ultimate sources ofinformation.

The employer or representative as the source of informationIn several of the surveys analysed, the business owners or managers, in addition to the workers, are used as a source ofinformation. These surveys seek to learn about working conditions and health from the ‘company’ perspective, from theviewpoint of the person responsible for the health and safety of the workers.

With regard to the population under study and the source of information, there are three different situations:

a) Surveys addressed to workers only. This is the most common procedure; of the 17 surveys analysed, 12 are addressedonly to workers.

b) Surveys addressed to business owners only. The National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES) conducted in theUS is the only survey analysed addressed exclusively to company owners and managers.

c) Surveys addressed both to employees and employers. Four of the surveys analysed aim at obtaining, with differentquestionnaires, both the worker’s perspective and the company owner or manager’s perspective

7. These surveys were

conducted in Canada, Estonia, Japan and Spain.

The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study (DWECS) is a special case. This survey, although it has a specificquestionnaire addressed to company managers

8, has to be classified in the group of ‘surveys addressed to workers only’.

The reason for this is that, except for a series of very concrete questions, most of the questions related to workingconditions and health are the same questions which are presented to the workers. In other words, the respondent, likeother workers, is asked about the organisation’s conditions, the physical atmosphere, safety, etc., of his/her own job.Therefore, in this survey, the company owner or manager is considered to be just one more worker

9.

Employee and company selection criteriaThe variables considered to define the population of the surveys are basically: the geographical area, the economicactivity and the number of employees in the company. The definition of ‘worker’ also involves the person’s situation inthe labour market, the age, whether he/she is resident in the country, and whether he/she is familiar enough with theofficial language of the country to respond to the questionnaire.


7In general, the respondent is the person who is responsible for occupational health or occupational safety in the company, eitherthe working environment specialist, the person responsible for other enterprise areas or the chief general manager.

8Of the three questionnaires included in this survey, reference is made here to questionnaire B.

9For this reason, in the section concerning the analysis of the content of the questionnaires (section six), the Danish survey isincluded in the study of employee questionnaires and not in the study of employer questionnaires. The latter is limited to thesurveys conducted in Canada, Estonia, Japan, Spain and the US.

12

The geographical area is national in every case, as this is one of the criteria to include the surveys in the analysis. Anotherof the inclusion criteria requires them to be of a multi-sectoral nature. In other words, they have to cover a broad rangeof the country’s economic activities. Although most of the surveys consider all economic activities, some surveysspecifically exclude some activities, largely the primary sector and public administration.

The economic activities expressly excluded from some of the surveys are shown on Table 4.

Table 4: Economic activities excluded from the population of certain surveys

The size of the company is also an element distinguishing the target population of the surveys, especially those includingcompany managers as a source of information. Three of the surveys analysed are limited to companies with a certainnumber of employees. This is applicable to: Spain (companies with more than one employee); the US (companies witheight employees or more); and Japan (varies by sub-survey: companies with over 10 employees, companies with over30 employees, and companies with over five and less than 100 employees).



Economic activities excluded

Canada - Crop production and animal production - Fishing, hunting and trapping - Public administration

Netherlands

- Forestry, logging and related service activities - Fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms - Service activities incidental to fishing - Mining of coal and lignite - Extraction of peat - Extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas - Service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction, excluding surveying - Mining of uranium and thorium ores - Mining of metal ores - Other mining and quarrying

Portugal - Public administration and defence - Compulsory social security - Other services

Spain - Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing - Mining, quarrying and manufacturing

USA

- Agricultural production - Any mining activity except oil and gas extraction - Railroad transportation - Finance institutions - Federal, state and municipal government facilities

Japan Survey on Labour Environment

- Mining, quarrying and manufacturing - Sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail

sale of automotive fuel - Land transport; transport via pipelines

10

10This Japanese survey is the most global of the surveys in the Industrial Safety Health project, according to its authors; so thisquestionnaire will be analysed in the relevant chapter.

13


From the perspective of the situation of the possible interviewee in the labour market, the study usually centres onsalaried and self-employed workers. In some cases, it is limited to people who worked during the previous week or whowork a certain number of hours (for instance, the German survey is centred on people working more than nine hours aweek). However, some surveys, in addition to active workers, also include other categories in the population under study,such as the unemployed (Austrian survey and NORBALT) or pensioners who were working five years previously(Austrian survey), etc.

11

Another criterion which is occasionally included to define the population, particularly in surveys with residence as thesampling unit, is the age of the potential interviewee. The age range considered varies from one survey to another. Thelowest limit is 15 (European Survey, Netherlands, Estonia), 16 (United Kingdom), 18 (Denmark, NORBALT) or 25(Finland). In some cases, an upper limit is also established, which varies from 65 (Finland, Netherlands), 69 (Denmark)to 74 (Estonia).

Finally, the definition of the population of many of the studies includes the need for the person to be a resident of thecountry and to be familiar enough with the country’s official language to respond to the interview.

Sampling strategy

As the previous section has outlined, different criteria were used to define the population for the surveys analysed. Allthe surveys analysed are based on probabilistic sampling, a characteristic which, although it was not explicitly requiredfor the survey to be selected for this analysis, is of vital importance for research with distributive methods.

Frequently, in addition to obtaining results for the total population, the different surveys have sought to obtain resultsrepresentative enough for certain groups of the population. Most of the national surveys analysed designed their sampleon the basis of geographical region strata, town size, economic activity or company size. Stratified random sampling wasthe most common. Some surveys, such as the European Survey and the Northern Baltic countries’ survey (NORBALT),have used multi-stage sampling. Most of the surveys use weighting procedures to ensure that there is adequaterepresentation.

It is worthwhile to mention briefly the sampling methods used in countries conducting parallel surveys on work centresand workers. In the Canadian workplace survey, company sampling follows stratification criteria based on the activity,geographical location and size of the company. Employee survey sampling is random, based on the list of employeesprovided by the work centres selected. In this survey, from four to 12 workers were interviewed, depending on the sizeof the company.

The Spanish survey uses a similar system. Spain applies stratified sampling to companies according to nine activitygroups and three size ranges

12. In each of the companies, one or two employees, depending on the size of the company

(one in companies with up to 249 workers and two in companies with 250 or more) are selected at random from the listprovided by the company.


11The information provided on the Italian survey states that ‘special attention will be paid to “atypical” workers’.

12The sample was to be enlarged in the 2002 Spanish survey, in order to obtain representativity for smaller companies.

14

The Estonian survey, however, applies two independent procedures, one for company sampling and one for employeesampling. For the former, it applies proportional sampling according to the activity sector and the geographical area.Employee sampling, on the other hand, is random, based on familial units, following some restrictive criteria such as ageand being an active worker. The distribution is then verified with national statistical data and, if necessary, weightingprocedures are applied.

Table 5 shows the basic sampling source, the sampling strategy and the sample size in the different surveys analysed.

Table 5: Sampling strategy in the working conditions surveys analysed



Basic sampling frame Sampling strategy Size of the sample

Austria Housing census and register of yearly built dwellings Stratified random sampling 30,000 households (1%

sample of all households)

Canada Business Register and lists of employees by the surveyed

employers

Business locations: stratified random sampling.

Employees: random sampling

About 6,350 workplaces and 24,600 employees

Czech Republic Multi-stage random sampling (random walk) 1,000 people

Denmark Central population register Stratified simple random sampling design with proportional allocation About 10,000 workers

Estonia Employers: Estonian Register of Companies and Business Register

Employers: proportionally sampling on the breakdown of areas and activity

sectors. Employees: people who work in the randomly selected families

402 companies’ representatives and 797

employees

European Survey NUTS 2

Weighted as per Eurostat’s Labour Force Survey

Multi-stage random sampling (random walk)

Around 1,500 individuals in each Member State (except

Luxembourg, 527). Total: 21,703 interviews

Finland Finnish population census Simple random sample 5,000 households

France Census Area random sampling Around 20,000 people

Germany ADM-Mastersample of precincts Random route procedure on household basis

34,343 (0.1% of the employed people in

Germany)

Italy ISTAT databases (to be defined) About 2,000 people

Japan Survey on Labour Environment

General Survey on Enterprises and Establishments Stratified random sampling

11,000 enterprises, 1,000 construction sites, 12,000

workers

NORBALT Public population register The samples were largely two stage stratified cluster samples

Latvia: 3500 households, Lithuania: 3500 households

(2769 interviews) and Estonia: 5500 households

Netherlands A select sample from workers

databases (from an enquiry bureau/agency)

Stratified random sampling About 4,000 workers

Portugal

Department’s file of establishments at national level covered in an annual statistical operation called ‘Quadros

de Pessoal’

Establishments: stratified random sampling 5,000 workers

15


Table 5: Sampling strategy in the working conditions surveys analysed (cont.)

The questionnaire that was distributed to the organisations or institutions responsible for the surveys asked about theeconomic activity and occupation classification used in the surveys. Although this information was not provided in manycases, the information available reveals that the most used classification systems were the Statistical Classification ofEconomic Activities (NACE) and the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO).

Data gathering

The most common procedure used to gather information is the personal interview, employed in 10 of the 17 surveysanalysed. The following procedures are also used, although less frequently: telephone survey (used in the surveys fromDenmark, Finland and Italy), mailed questionnaires (used in the Dutch survey) and combinations of the three. Thecombinations found are personal interview and telephone interview (Canada and Estonia), and telephone interview andmailed questionnaire (Sweden).

In at least three of the working conditions surveys, interviews were conducted with the help of laptop computers. Theseare the surveys conducted in France, Germany and Estonia. The Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI)system was used in France. Estonia made use of Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) for its employers’survey and Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) for its employees’ survey

13.

The interviews take place either at the interviewee’s home or place of work. They take place more frequently in the home(11 of the 17 surveys analysed) and less often at the place of work (in four cases). In two cases, a combination of thetwo was used (Canada and Estonia). (See Table 6)


Basic sampling frame Sampling strategy Size of the sample

Spain Census of companies from the social security Stratified random sampling

3,419 interviews to the people in charge of the company and

3,702 interviews to employees

Sweden Population register Stratified random sampling 12,000 people

United Kingdom Post code address file of ‘small

users’ which includes private household addresses

Stratified random sample Analysis based on 2,230 individuals (current workers)

USA Dun and Bradstreet Market

Inventory; Census Bureau - County Business Patterns

Stratified probability sample 4,490 establishments

13The use of laptop computers by interviewers is increasingly common, minimising the possible errors in the data collection process.They appear to be used especially for long and periodical surveys. The idea is simple: instead of writing the information on aprinted questionnaire, the interviewers use laptop computers to key the data in directly. This procedure is also used in the LabourForce Survey (LFS), with most countries using CAPI and/or CATI (see Data sheet 0.02). It was also planned for use in the Québecsurvey on workers’ health and their environment of work (EQSTREME).

16

Table 6: Field work in the working conditions surveys analysed

Access to the survey information

The questionnaire used to gather basic information on the different surveys asked about the different products that thesurveys had generated: publications, reports, website texts, etc; and if the questionnaires and raw data

14were public

information, and how they are accessed. A summary of the information obtained is shown in Table 7.

All the surveys analysed generated one or several publications based on the research, except for the Italian survey whichwas to be conducted for the first time. The references to the specific publications and the web addresses, whereapplicable, appear on the survey data sheets in the annex.

Most of the organisations or institutions responsible publish information on the surveys on their web pages.

The responses indicated that access is available to all the questionnaires, either on the relevant website or publications,or upon request to the organisation concerned.



Mode of data collection Location of interview

Austria Face to face interview At home

Canada Face to face (workplace survey), By telephone (employee survey)

Workplace (workplace survey), Interview at home (employee survey)

Denmark Telephone interview At home

Estonia Telephone (CATI) (employers’ survey), Face to face (CAPI) (employees’ survey)

Workplace (employers’ survey), Interview at home (employees’ survey)

European Survey Face to face interview At home

Finland Telephone interview At home

France Face to face interview (CAPI) At home

Germany Face to face interview (CAPI) At home

Italy By telephone interview At home

Japan Face to face interview Workplace

NORBALT Face to face interview At home

Netherlands By mail Mailing to workers’ home address

Portugal Face to face interview Workplace

Spain Face to face interview Workplace

Sweden By telephone and by mail At home

United Kingdom Face to face interview At home

USA Face to face interview Workplace

14The ‘raw data’ is the matrix generated with the data taken directly from the completed questionnaires, which is the basis for theanalysis.

17


Access to the raw data is possible in most cases. This availability depends largely on a prior request being made and,sometimes, on certain requirements such as a payment fee or that the request comes from the research field. In threecases, this study was unable to determine if the raw data is accessible (Estonia, France and Sweden). Access is notpossible in three cases (Japan, Portugal and United Kingdom).

Table 7: Public/available information on the working conditions surveys analysed


Publications Access to the questionnaires Access to the Raw Data Information about the survey on the web

Austria Yes Yes

(on website) Yes

(upon request) General information about the survey,

Questionnaires and instructions for the interviewer

Canada Yes Yes

(on website) Yes

(upon request)

General information about the survey. Report of the survey that includes design and results, and

questionnaires

Czech Republic Yes

Yes (upon request)

Yes (upon request)

Denmark Yes Yes (upon request) Yes (upon request) General information about the survey

Estonia Yes Yes

(on website)

General information about the survey. Report of the survey that includes design, results and

graphics. Questionnaires

European Survey Yes

Yes (in published report)

Yes (upon request from

interested researchers)

General information about the survey. Report of the survey (that includes questionnaires), and

secondary analysis reports

Finland Yes Yes

(on website) Yes

(in website) Access to questionnaires, raw data and other

information not published

France Yes Yes (upon request) Information about the survey results

Germany Yes Yes

(on website) Yes

(in website)

General information about the survey, questionnaires, information about the weighting procedure and an overview of the samples of the

four surveys

Japan Yes Yes (upon request) No General information about the survey. Results

NORBALT Yes Yes

(on website) Yes

(upon request)

Baseline reports from each country, national analytical reports, comparative report and

questionnaires

Netherlands Yes Yes

(in published report) Yes (after two years, it

can be bought from TNO)

Portugal Yes Yes (in published report, on website) No General information about the survey. Results.

Questionnaire

Spain Yes Yes

(upon request) Yes (upon request from interested researchers) General information about the survey. Results

Sweden Yes Yes (upon request) Report of the survey

United Kingdom Yes

Yes (in published report)

No

USA Yes Yes (in published documents)

Yes (limited data in job exposure matrix) Report of the survey

18

When the surveys complied with the requirements to be specifically analysed in this project, the institution concernedwas asked to provide the questionnaires used in the last edition of the survey, if possible in English. If they were notreceived in English, they were translated. One of the basic objectives of this research was to obtain and perform adetailed analysis of the questionnaires.

This section includes a comparative study of the characteristics and content of the questionnaires received, distinguishingbetween questionnaires addressed to employees and questionnaires addressed to employers. The study provides adetailed theme-based classification of the variables included in the questionnaires. Within each variable are classified therelevant blocks of questions, the questions and, depending on each case, the different response options to more generalquestions. This analysis was performed solely with the information contained in the questionnaires.

From this classification, it was possible to establish the subjects of interest, and how often, and how the different aspectsare approached in general, with particular emphasis on the cases where the subject was handled more extensively or ina different manner. When it was considered to be of interest, footnotes are inserted to specify, for instance, that aquestionnaire included a definition accompanying the question heading

15, or that another included an annex with a list

of categories to help the interviewee to respond, etc.

In the description of each block of questions, a summary table is included that shows the different aspects consideredand whether they were handled by each questionnaire (identified by the name of the country or institution). In the cellreferring to a topic and a questionnaire, a symbol appears if it is considered in the questionnaire; the cell will be emptyif it is not.

Table 8 shows, for each survey, which questionnaires or questionnaire modules have been analysed, in which section thequestionnaire was analysed (employee and/or employer), and if the analysis was carried out on the original or an Englishtranslation.

Comparative analysis of thequestionnaires


3

15It was considered worthwhile to include the definitions or explanations of terms used in certain questions. One of the mostimportant difficulties facing those who draft questionnaires involves translating technical concepts or terms into an accessiblelanguage which is as intelligible as possible for a broad and varied population.

19


Table 8: Basic information on the questionnaires or questionnaire modules analysed


Country Survey

Questionnaire or modules analysed Section in which it was analysed

(employee and/or employer) Questionnaire in English or translation

Austria Working Conditions 1999 - Supplementary Programme of Austrian Mikrozensus

- Specific ‘Personal form B’ module analysed - Employee questionnaire - Translation

Canada Workplace and Employee Survey 1999 (WES)

- Complete questionnaire analysed - Employee questionnaire and employer questionnaire - In English

Denmark The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2000 (DWECS)

- ‘Questionnaire B’ and ‘Questionnaire C’ analysed - Employee questionnaire - Translation

Estonia Working Environment Survey 2000 - Complete questionnaire analysed - Employee questionnaire and employer questionnaire - In English

Finland Work and Health Survey 2000 - Complete questionnaire analysed - Employee questionnaire - In English

France Working Conditions 1998 (CT)

- Specific ‘Questionnaire complémentaire sur les conditions de travail’ module analysed

- Employee questionnaire - Translation

Germany Germany BIBB/IAB-Survey (1998-99) - Complete questionnaire analysed - Employee questionnaire - Translation

Italy Features and Quality of Work in Italy (2002) - Questionnaire not available at time of research

Japan Industrial Safety Health

- Analysis of the questionnaire for the Survey on Labour Environment ‘sub-survey’

- Employee questionnaire and employer questionnaire - Translation

Netherlands TNO Working Situation Survey 2000 (TAS)

- Analysis of the complete questionnaire - Employee questionnaire - Translation

Portugal Survey on Workers’ Working Conditions (1999-2000)

- Analysis of the complete questionnaire - Employee questionnaire - Translation

Spain National Working Conditions Survey 1999 (ENCT)

- Analysis of the complete questionnaire - Employee questionnaire and employer questionnaire - Translation

Sweden Working Environment Survey (2001) - Specific ‘Work Environment 2001’ module analysed - Employee questionnaire - In English

United Kingdom Self-reported Working Conditions in 1995 (SWC95)

- Analysis of ‘Module 122’ - Employee questionnaire - In English

USA National Occupational Exposure Survey 1981-1983 (NOES)

- Analysis of the complete questionnaire - Employer questionnaire - In English

European Foundation

European Working Conditions Survey 2000-2001 (EWCS)

- Analysis of the complete questionnaire - Employee questionnaire - In English

Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science

Living Conditions Survey 1999 (NORBALT II)

- Analysis of the ‘Labour Force’ and ‘Working Conditions’ modules of the questionnaire used in Latvia

- Employee questionnaire - In English

20

As Table 8 shows, in some cases the complete questionnaire was analysed (when it is centred on working conditions)and, in others, the specific working conditions questionnaire or module was analysed. This has a direct impact on theanalysis, in that only the variables contained in the questionnaires under study were examined. The completequestionnaire would contain all the variables available for the study in question, but the specific working conditionsmodule or questionnaire only contains part of these variables. It is therefore possible that some variables may be missingfrom the following analysis since, although they are included in the complete survey, they are not part of thequestionnaire analysed here (for instance, variables identifying the employee or the company in which he/she works,characteristics of the job, etc.).

Certain surveys do not consider particular topics, or fail to consider them in detail, which are the subject of other nationalsurveys. One specific example is Japan, because of the cyclical and modular nature of its working conditions surveys.For the purposes of this study, their Survey on Labour Environment ‘sub-survey’ was translated and analysed. This is,according to its authors, the most global of the studies included in the Industrial Safety Health survey.

Before classifying the variables included in the different questionnaires, Table 9 provides general information: thenumber of items included and the topics into which they are divided. The number of items shown in the table acts as aguide, since it refers to the literal item number appearing on the last question of the questionnaire. This number, however,often fails to reflect multiple response questions or the full extent of sub-divided questions.

Table 9: Number of items and topics per questionnaire



Country Type of questionnaire Topics Number

of items Austria Employee Untitled (1b-24b); Working conditions (25b-38b) 38

Employee

Job characteristics (1-24); Training and development (25-30); Employee participation (31a-31g); Personal and family support programmes (32-32eii); Worker representation and industrial relations (33-34c); Compensation (35-39); Work history / Turnover (40-60)

60

Canada

Employer

SECTION A: Workforce characteristics and job organisation (1a-1e); Hiring (2-2b); Vacancies: Filled vacancies (3a-4b); Vacancies: Separations (5a-5c); SECTION B: Compensation (6a-9); Employee benefits (10-11); Hours of work (12-13); SECTION C: Training (14a-16d); SECTION D: Human resources practices (17); Work organisation (18-19); Organisational change (20-23); SECTION E: Collective bargaining (24a-27d); SECTION F: Workplace performance (28-33); SECTION G: Business strategy (34-39); SECTION H: Innovation (40-42); SECTION I: Technology use (43-50); SECTION J: Use of government programmes (51)

51

Denmark Employee

QUESTIONNAIRE B: Text 1: present work (1B-26B). Text 2: work tasks (27B-29B). Text 3: PC use (30B-33B). Text 4: work environment (34B). Text 5: dangerous agents (35B-38B). Text 6: accidents at work (39B-44B). Text 7: accidents in general (45B-47B). Text 8: working posture (48B-53B). Text 9: work organisation (54B-81B). Text 10: work management (82B-94B). Text 11: conflicts and the like at work (95B-100B). Text 12: lifestyle (101B-107B). Text 13: relationship between work and private life (108B-109B). Text 14: health (110B-159B). Text 15: pain and difficulties in muscles, bones and joints (160B-182B). Text 16: work capabilities (183B-190B) QUESTIONNAIRE C: Text 1: present work (1C-30C). Text 2: present self-employed work (31C-38C). Text 3: work tasks (39C-41C). Text 4: PC use (42C-45C). Text 5: work environment (46C). Text 6: dangerous agents (47C-49C). Text 7: accidents at work (50C-55C). Text 8: accidents in general (56C-58C). Text 9: working posture (59C-64C). Text 10: work organisation (65C-90C). Text 11: conflicts and the like at work (91C-95C). Text 12: lifestyle (96C-102C). Text 13: relationship between work and private life (103C-104C). Text 14: health (105C-156C). Text 15: pain and difficulties in muscles, bones and joints (157C-179C). Text 16: work capabilities (180C-186C)

376

Employee Untitled (1-28) 28 Estonia

Employer Untitled (1-56) 56

21


Table 9: Number of items and topics per questionnaire (cont.)


Country Type of questionnaire Topics Number

of items

Finland Employee

Background (1-54); Hazards in the work environment, industrial hygiene (55-71); Personal protective equipment (72-87); Work space, instruments and functioning of work (88-98); Ergonomics and physical work load (99-117); Accidents and hazards, physical violence (118-141); Psychosocial and organisational factors at work (142-177); The functioning of occupational health, use of health services, information concerning prevention of health hazards (178-238); Healthy life style, income (239-248); Illnesses, symptoms, health and work ability (249-310); Reconciling work and the family (311-323)

323

France Employee Untitled (1-70) 70 Germany Employee Untitled (1-266) 266

Employee Untitled (Question 1); Environment of the workplace (Question 2); Toxic substances (Questions 3-4); Organic solvents (Question 5); State of health (Question 6) 20

Japan Employer

The company (I); Environment of the workplace (II); Health controls for workers who work with toxic substances (III); Environment of workplace for occupational hazards (IV)

36

Latvia Employee Labour force (CL01-CL18); Working conditions (F01-F16) 34

Netherlands Employee

General questions (1-11); Current position in the labour market (12-27); General view of work (28-29); Job content (30-31); Labour relations and work climate (32-33); Working conditions (34-46); Primary and secondary working conditions (47-52), Health and work (53-64), Other questions about work and final conclusions (65-74)

74

Portugal Employee

Group 1: Identification of the establishment (1-11). Group 2: The worker’s characteristics (1-19). Group 3: Time at work (1-14). Group 4: Job characteristics (1-8). Group 5: Physical conditions of the work activity (1-8). Group 6: Safety, hygiene and health at work (1-16). Group 7: Occupational injuries (1-13). Group 8: Social conditions (1-14)

103

Employee

Type of contract (1-5); Type of work (6-13); Thermal environment (14-16); Physical agents (17-19); Chemical contaminants (20-24); Safety conditions (25-27); Ergonomics (28); Workload (29-35); Communication (36-37); Status (38-39); Decision-making capacity (40-42); Promotion (43); Work schedule (44-50); Participation (51); Organisation of prevention work (52-55); Prevention activities (56-67); Training (68-70); Damage to health (71-80); Personal details (81-87)

87

Spain

Employer Economic activity / Building work data (1-9); Staff (10-21); Participation figures (22-27); Preventive resources (28-42); Preventive activities (43-47); Training, information and participation (48-56); Machinery and equipment (57-61); Various (62-65)

65

Sweden Employee

Symptoms after work (1-7); Symptoms in general (8-17); Working positions and movements (18-26); Risk exposure (27-40); Stress and social contact (41-44); Demands, difficulties and support (45-69); Education (70-75); Openness at work (76); Work environment (77-78); Occupational health service (79-80); Time for recovery/rest (81-82); Sick attendance (83); Change of work responsibilities for health reasons (84-87); Various (88-102)

102

United Kingdom Employee Untitled (1-45) 45

USA Employer Untitled (1-4); General facility information (5-13); Medical services (14-27); Industrial hygiene and safety practices (28-61); General record-keeping information (62-66)

66

European Foundation Employee

Untitled (Q1-Q10); Physical environment (Q11-Q13); Time (Q14-Q20); Organisational environment (Q21-Q29); Social environment (Q30-Q33); Outcomes (Q34-Q38); Demographics (EF7-EF23); Interview protocol (P1-P12)

68

22

The following analysis of the content of the employee questionnaires refers to all the questionnaires selected except forItaly and the Czech Republic: the former, because the questionnaire was not available at the time of this research; thelatter, because it uses the same questionnaire as the European Survey, with a slight difference in some questions, whichis specified in the section relating to work time.

Analysis of the questionnaires addressed to employees

The content of the different questionnaires addressed to employees16

has been divided into eight sections: companyinformation, employee information and labour history, employment conditions, working hours, physical environmentfactors, organisation of work, occupational risk prevention and damage to health.

Company informationThis section considers all the questions included in the questionnaires analysed which ask employees for informationabout the firm for which they work. This topic is covered in nine of the 15 questionnaires analysed. The informationrequested refers basically to the company’s main economic activity, size, type of company and economic situation (seeTable 10).

Table 10: Company data indicators in the employee questionnaires

AT: Austria; CA: Canada; DE: Germany; DK: Denmark; ES: Spain; EF: European Survey; EE: Estonia; FR: France; FI: Finland;JP: Japan; LV: Latvia; NL: Netherlands; PT: Portugal; SE: Sweden; UK: United Kingdom.

All the questionnaires asking the employee for company information refer to the economic activity of the company, withmore or less emphasis on detail, and its size, based on the number of employees in the company and/or the employee’splace of work.

The next most requested information is the type of company, mostly referring to whether the company is state-owned,public or private (European Survey, Finland, Latvia, Denmark). The German questionnaire asks whether the firm is partof a company with several facilities, branches and subsidiaries, and their location.

Three questionnaires ask the employee to evaluate the company’s economic situation; directly in the German and Dutchquestionnaires, and indirectly in the Danish questionnaire (asking if the company has been merged, sold, etc.).



16Although these questionnaires are in some cases addressed both to salaried employees and self-employed workers or even toexecutive employees, the analysis was basically centred on the population common to all of them, salaried employees. The itemsspecifically aimed at the other types of worker, although they have been classified and appear on the summary table in the annex,are not explained in the written analysis.

AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK

Economic activity

Number of employees

Type of company

Economic situation

23


As Table 10 shows, some questionnaires addressed to employees do not obtain company information, such as is the casefor Spain. Although the Spanish employee questionnaire does not contain basic employer variables such as the economicactivity or the size, these variables are controlled by the overall survey, inasmuch as they are included in thequestionnaire addressed to employers (see relevant section) and are included for analysis in the employee’s raw data. Itmight be assumed that the same applies to other surveys, and that although these variables are not included in thequestionnaire analysed, they are included in other questionnaires included within the survey.

Employee information and labour history

This section considers all the questions included which ask employees for sociodemographic data, information aboutfamily and social life, and/or information on their past and present labour situation. This applies to 13 of the 15questionnaires analysed (see Table 11).

Table 11: Employee data and labour history indicators in the employee questionnaires


Sociodemographic variablesBasic control sociodemographic variables, such as age and sex are requested in nine of the questionnaires analysed; thefirst is either a direct question or calculated from the employee’s date of birth.

Fewer questionnaires (six) ask about the employee’s nationality, and in a different way depending on the country. In fourof them, there is a single question referring to: nationality (European Survey, Austria), whether the employee or his/herparents were born abroad (Netherlands), or the employee’s ethnic group (Denmark). This topic is covered moreextensively in Canada and Germany.

The German questionnaire asks employees if they are German citizens and, if not, their nationality. It also asks wherethey grew up (where most of their childhood was spent) and - if they have grown up outside Germany - the date whenthey moved to Germany, whether they have lived outside Germany for a long period, and the reasons. The Canadian


AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Age Sex Nationality

Socio-demographic data

Training Civil status People living at home Family income

Family and social life

Domestic and family tasks

Labour situation Current labour situation Another paid job

Labour experience Job changes and reasons Employee’s

labour history

Unemployment

24

questionnaire asks employees if they were born in Canada. If the response is negative, it asks for the year when theyemigrated to Canada, and the country of origin.

The subject of the employee’s academic and professional training arises in seven of the questionnaires analysed, andusually involves between one and three questions. The German questionnaire is an exception, since an important part ofthe content refers to this topic. One of the basic objectives of the edition of the German survey analysed (1998-99) is togather information on the qualifications of the working population, so it requests details on the employee’squalifications, when they were obtained, where they were obtained, how easy it was to find employment based on beingqualified, the application of the qualifications in the current position, the advantages of having obtained highereducation, etc.

Family and social lifeUnder family and social life, six of the questionnaires studied ask for civil status which, in most cases, in addition to thelegal status categories, includes whether the employee lives alone or with a partner.

Seven questionnaires ask about the people sharing the home. They ask about the number of children/offspring living athome and/or their age, and, to a lesser extent, the number of people overall living in the home.

Another aspect considered in seven questionnaires, in more or less detail, is related to family income. Specific questionsare: if the partner with whom the employee lives has paid employment (Germany, Finland, Netherlands), or, in moregeneral terms, the number of people living at home who have paid jobs (European Survey), and/or if the employeeinterviewed is the person with the highest income at home (European Survey, Spain, Netherlands). In Austria, the interestlies in identifying the sources of income and, in the Netherlands, there is a direct question on the annual income of thefamily unit from paid employment and other sources.

The subject of domestic and family tasks is only considered in three of the questionnaires studied. The questions areaimed at learning whether the interviewee is the person primarily responsible for domestic tasks, and the number ofhours spent performing these tasks.

Particular mention should be made to aspects of the European Survey and Finnish questionnaires. The former asks indetail about the frequency with which different domestic tasks are performed: care and education of children, cooking,care of elderly or disabled relatives, etc. This list also covers other activities outside work (cultural, political, unions,etc.). In the Finnish questionnaire, the subject is approached in a comparative manner. It asks which of the two, theinterviewee or his/her partner, spend more time on domestic tasks and caring for children.

Labour situationQuestions on the interviewee’s current situation regarding the employment market occur in questionnaires in which theinterview takes place at the employee’s home, so that it is possible to interview employees on sick leave, unemployedpersons, etc. They are largely questions related to whether the interviewee is (or has been) in paid employment. They actas a filter to continue or not with the questionnaire or module in question.

Seven of the questionnaires analysed ask the employee if, in addition to his/her main job, he/she has another paid job (orjobs). If the response is positive, in most cases they ask how many hours this second job involves (European Survey,Germany, Finland, Latvia, Canada, Denmark) and, in some cases, what the job is (Germany) or the weekly incomeinvolved (Canada). If the response is that the interviewee does not have another paid job, the Latvian questionnaire asksif he/she is looking for one.



25


Several items relate to the employee’s labour history, such as labour experience. In two cases, Germany and Canada, thequestionnaires include a series of questions in which the employees are asked to indicate for how long they have beenworking and the total number of employers they have had in all (Germany) or over the last five years (Canada).

The Canadian questionnaire also asks about the interviewee’s first job and the job immediately prior to the present one.With regard to the first job, it asks how the interviewee learned about the job and the necessary tests or requirements toget it. Regarding the immediately previous job, it asks what kind of job it was, what it consisted of, how long they werein the job, the working hours, the salary, if the employees had a pension plan, if they used a computer and if they receivedtraining.

In the Danish questionnaire, the interest lies in knowing if the interviewees have been working for their current employerfor at least five years and, if not, the year in which they left their previous job.

Another aspect considered in four of the questionnaires analysed concerns job changes and the reasons for them. BothPortugal and Germany are interested in knowing if the interviewee has changed jobs. The Portuguese survey askswhether there has been a job change in the last five years (and, if not, if the employee has attempted to change and howmany times). The German survey asks whether there has been a change of professional activity involving a change ofprofession. In this case, a positive response leads to other questions about the change (dates, the employee’s assessmentof whether his/her professional situation has improved or not, etc.).

The four questionnaires which consider this subject include categorised questions to know the reasons behind thechange: change of profession and change from the previous employer (German); job change or attempted job change(Portuguese); change of employer (Canadian); and change compared with the job held five years earlier (Danish).

Six questionnaires include questions on unemployment, either addressed to the unemployed person or to intervieweeswho have once been unemployed (in several cases distinguishing between those who are unemployed and those whohave been dismissed). The basic interest lies in obtaining information on how long the interviewees were unemployedand their search for employment.

Employment conditions

This section considers questions which ask the employees for information on certain conditions of their currentemployment: the labour regime; how long they have been in the job and in the company; labour contract characteristics;possibilities of promotion; different aspects of their salary; and the risk that the employees perceive of losing the job (seeTable 12). This topic is addressed in 11 of the 15 questionnaires analysed.


26

Table 12: Employment conditions indicators in the employee questionnaires


The topic of labour regime includes questions referring to the employees’ professional situation, whether they earn asalary, are self-employed and work alone, are an employer with salaried employees, freelance, non-paid employee in afamily business, etc. This aspect is included in eight of the questionnaires studied; in each one of them the questionconcerned has a different number of response categories. The German questionnaire also asks how long the employeehas been working under the current regime.

Most of the questionnaires consider how long the employees have been working at one or several levels; how long intheir present company, with their current employer, and/or how long in the current occupation, either in the currentcompany or in general. The Canadian questionnaire also asks if the interviewee has worked for this employer before,and for how long.

Nine of the questionnaires ask the employee to specify the type of contract with his/her employer, whether it is indefinite,temporary, training-related, part-time, etc. The response options provided vary in each questionnaire and, unlike otherquestionnaires, Latvia provides ‘no contract’ and ‘verbal contract’ as options. Canada, Denmark and the EuropeanSurvey ask, in relation to temporary contracts, for the contract duration.

One aspect found with less frequency relates to the employee’s promotion, approached in only four of the questionnairesanalysed. In this respect, the questions seek to establish if the employee has been promoted and/or if he/she haspromotion prospects. The Canadian questionnaire considers this subject in more depth (four questions). In addition toincluding a definition of ‘promotion’, it asks how many times the employee has been promoted and details of the lastpromotion: dates and relevant factors (experience, seniority, etc.).

The employee’s salary or earnings are considered in most of the questionnaires. Three basic aspects are considered: thegross or net income, the concepts included in that income, and the employee’s assessment of the salary received. Unlikethe other questionnaires, Spain asks if the employee receives a fixed salary, variable wages or a combination of the two.

Some cases also include questions aimed at knowing other income received by the employee (benefits, subsidies,pension plans, life insurance, etc.). The Canadian questionnaire asks the most questions on the subject.

Finally, seven of the questionnaires analysed include one or two questions on employment stability and on theemployee’s perception of the risk of losing his/her job, including, in Portugal and Latvia, the reasons.



AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK

Labour regime

Start of job date

Type and duration of contract

Promotion

Salary

Risk of losing job

27


Work time

All the questionnaires analysed, except Japan and the United Kingdom, approach the subject of work time. The differentaspects of this topic can be classified as follows (see Table 13):

Time spent working: number of working hours; overtime; time taken to travel to work and back; and work performedat home.

Part-time work.

Working hours: in general; night work; shift work; weekend and holiday work; regular/irregular working hours; howlong working hours are known in advance; flexibility; and control of working hours.

Compulsory breaks during working hours.

Leisure time outside working hours.

How working hours are adapted to family and/or social commitments.

Satisfaction with working hours/timetable.

Table 13: Working hours indicators in the employee questionnaires



AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Number of hours Overtime Time travelling to and from work

Time spent working

Work performed at home Part-time work

In general Night work Shift work Weekends and holidays Regularity/irregularity How far in advance the schedule is known

Flexible start and finish time

Work schedule

Control of working hours Compulsory breaks during working hours Leisure time outside working hours Timetable adapted to family and/or social commitments

Degree of satisfaction with the number of working hours

28

The time spent working is considered in 11 of the 15 employee questionnaires analysed. They all request information onthe employee’s number of working hours (per week or day). In addition to the working hours set out in the labourcontract, most of the questionnaires are interested in knowing how many hours are actually spent working (overtime,housework, etc.). Six of them want to know how much time is spent travelling to and from work.

Six questionnaires ask about the work that the employee does at home. In general, the questions aim to learn if theemployee does part or all of his/her work at home, and how often. The Canadian survey devotes more questions to thistopic than the other surveys. It asks if the work done at home is carried out during normal working hours, if it is paidwork, the number of hours per week, the main reasons why the interviewee works at home (a list of possible reasons isprovided), and if the employer provides equipment or supplies of any kind, and/or covers the cost of working at home.

Six of the questionnaires analysed also include a question asking if employees do part-time work. In the Portuguese andCanadian surveys, there is a second categorised question asking about the reasons why they do this type of work.

Working hoursAll the questionnaires that consider the time spent working include a series of questions about the work schedule, andseven of them ask if the employee works on weekends (Saturdays and/or Sundays) and/or holidays. In most cases, thesequestions contain response options relating to the frequency or regularity of the different work schedules.

Some questionnaires also pay special attention to particular schedules, essentially night work and shift work. They addadditional questions, for example, with regard to shift work, the number of shifts, number of days between shift changes,etc.

Eight questionnaires ask about the regularity or irregularity of the employee’s working hours: if the employee is subjectto an irregular timetable (Portugal, Austria, Finland), if he/she works the same number of hours every day and/or thesame number of days every week (European Survey, France, Canada), or if the hours increased or decreased during thelast year (the Netherlands).

Some questionnaires request information on how long in advance the employees are informed of their work schedule.In some cases, this is a general question for all employees (France), while in others it is a question specifically addressedto employees with a changing or non-traditional schedule (European Survey, Canada). In the Canadian case, it also askshow long in advance the employee is informed of his/her overtime (paid or not).

Five of the questionnaires want to know if the employee has to start and finish work at fixed times or if this is flexible.Two of the questionnaires examine control of working hours, to detect if the employee is subject to this type of controland how it is carried out.

The existence of compulsory breaks during the working day, and the number of them, is another work time indicatorconsidered in two of the questionnaires analysed (Portugal and France). The French questionnaire asks if employees cantake these breaks when they wish, how long lunch break lasts and how much time is available for eating (after deductingpossible travel time and waiting).



29


Leisure time outside work is approached by asking if there is a minimum time (the French questionnaire asks if theemployee has at least 48 consecutive hours outside work in any one week), or by asking employees for their evaluationof the time available for leisure/resting (for example, the Swedish survey).

The questionnaires used in Denmark, the European Survey, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden specificallyask about how working hours are adapted to family and/or social commitments. The questions ask the employee toprovide an estimation, either using a value scale (very well...not well at all, very satisfied...not satisfied, verypositive...very negative) or a frequency scale (very often...never).

Finally, four questionnaires ask employees to value their degree of satisfaction with the number of working hours. Thequestions ask if they would increase or decrease their working hours (European Survey, Latvia, Canada) or ask directlyfor the number of hours that the employee would like to work (the Netherlands).

In the European Survey, this question is addressed to part-time workers. The Canadian questionnaire adds questions onthe number of hours that the employee would decrease or increase, and the reasons why he/she would prefer to workfewer hours or does not work more hours.

The questionnaire in the Czech Republic’s survey only differs from the questionnaire used in the European Survey in thegroup of questions related to working hours. These questions follow the same lines as those described above

17.

Physical environment factors

This section considers the questions related to the physical environment at work (see Table 14). The different aspects ofthis topic included can be classified as follows:

Specific physical environment factors such as temperature and humidity, lighting, noise, vibrations, radiation andchemical and biological pollutants.

Safety risks (not explicitly related to accidents at work).

Physical effort, which includes posture, lifting/carrying heavy weights, application of force, repetitive hand or armmovements and physical effort in general.

Individual and collective protective equipment (not explicitly related to accidents at work).

Other physical environment factors at work.

Company equipment.


17The different questions in the Czech questionnaire are: M.14a, M.14b, M.14c, M.17c, Q.18a (sections 5 and 6), Q.18d, M.19c,M.19d, M.19e, M.19f.

30

Table 14: Physical environment factor indicators in the employee questionnaires


The physical environment is analysed by questions related to whether the employee is exposed and/or the time ofexposure to different risk factors. In some cases, questions are included on the employee’s evaluation of the danger levelconcerned (Finland and Estonia), or if the employee considers that this factor could be improved at his/her place of work(Japan). The most frequently considered physical environment components in these questionnaires are chemical andbiological pollutants, temperature, noise, vibrations and posture.

The questions on the thermal environment are centred on the following aspects: heat, cold, temperature variations,humidity, outdoor work, draughts or air conditioning. The questions on lighting are basically centred on whether theemployee is exposed to unsuitable lighting, bright lights or artificial lighting.

With regard to noise, most questions are aimed at detecting both loud and/or acute noises (with the question drafted interms of whether the employee is able to talk to other people), and moderate but annoying noises. In the UK survey, aquestion is included related to perceivable physical symptoms produced by noise

18and the frequency with which these

symptoms are perceived.



AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Thermal environment Lighting Noise Vibrations Radiation Chemical and biological environment Safety risks

Work posture Lifting/carrying heavy loads Application of force Repetitive hand or arm movements

Physical effort

Other physical effort and physical effort in general

Personal and collective protective equipment

Other physical environment factors Company equipment

Question number 38 in the United Kingdom questionnaire asks: ‘Do/did you ever have work tasks that leave/left you with a ringingin your ears or a temporary feeling of deafness?’

31


Most of the questionnaires in which the subject of vibrations is considered refer to vibrations in general (defining theconcept to a greater or lesser extent). In some cases, such as Sweden, United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark, theydistinguish between the vibrations perceived by the hand and vibrations perceived by the entire body or different partsof the body.

The questionnaires also ask about the employee’s exposure and/or time of exposure to radiation, in most cases includingexamples.

The group of risks included in chemical and biological pollutants are largely handled by a numbered list of possiblepollutants (which in Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Japan explicitly includes cigarette smoke). In addition tothe exposure and/or time of exposure to each of them, some questionnaires include questions related to the employee’straining and information on their use and effects, if the products are labelled (Finland, Spain, Japan), or if there areventilation problems in the workplace (Austria, Estonia, Japan).

The group of questions coming under safety risks includes those concerned with aspects of occupational safety but arenot explicitly related to accidents at work. (Where this relationship is explicitly established, they have been included inthe Damage to Health section.)

From this perspective, some questionnaires ask about the employee’s exposure and/or frequency of exposure to a seriesof itemised safety risks, such as electric contacts, falls, falling objects, entrapment, etc. (such as Portugal, Finland,France, Spain, Japan). Other questionnaires take a more general approach to this question, referring to dangerousproducts, materials or conditions (European Survey, Germany, Austria, United Kingdom, Denmark).

Physical effortWithin the physical effort group, posture is the factor more frequently analysed (14 questionnaires). In general, this topicis handled with a series of questions providing more or less detail of exposure and/or frequency of exposure to differentforced, unnatural, repeated or sustained postures at work.

The questions on lifting/carrying heavy loads, present in 13 questionnaires, are also largely centred on the exposureand/or frequency of exposure to this kind of work. In several questionnaires, the question includes the weight of the load,either giving a reference weight (if the employee has to lift, carry... loads weighing over X kg), or asking directly for theweight of the load in question.

The questionnaires that give reference weights are in Germany (loads over 20 kg for men and 10 kg for women), Sweden(loads of at least 15 kg.), and the Netherlands (loads over 5 kg). Finland and Denmark attempt to delimit the weight ofa usual load, based on range responses. Denmark asks different questions related to moving, lifting and pushing, andstretching. In Finland, if the load weighs over 25 kg, the questionnaire asks if lifting equipment or vehicles are available.

The effort of applying force and/or the frequency of exposure is approached in four questionnaires, while makingrepetitive hand or arm movements is covered in six. In the Finnish and Danish questionnaires, the question includesexamples of these efforts

19.


19The Finnish questionnaire includes examples of application of force (question number 108) and examples of repetitive hand force(question number 109). The Danish questionnaire includes examples of movements of the fingers (questions 48i, questionnaire B,and 59i, questionnaire C) and the arms (questions 48j, questionnaire B, and 59j, questionnaire C).

32

The other physical effort group includes questions related to the need for visual or auditory efforts (Germany, France),and other job problems such as the comfort of chairs, accessibility of elements (Spain), or the availability of well adaptedsoftware and computer programmes (France).

Physical effort in general also includes non-specific questions related to the employee’s exposure and/or frequency ofexposure to significant, extenuating physical efforts, and other questions asking the employees to evaluate if their workis physically taxing or not.

Similarly to safety risks, the section on individual and collective protective equipment includes questions that are notexplicitly related to accidents at work. Taking this into consideration, there are two approaches to this subject: on the onehand, the convenience or not of the use of personal and/or collective protection and, on the other, when such protectionis necessary, if it is available, if the employee is involved in its selection, if it is used, if it is suitable, etc. Examples ofthe two approaches are the Austrian and the Finnish questionnaires, respectively.

Other physical environment factors include questions about whether the employee is able to see outside (Portugal andFrance), works on premises with the windows closed or with no windows (Portugal) or has a private space in which towork (Portugal). The Japanese questionnaire asks which aspects of the workplace the employee would like to improvein order to obtain a pleasant environment: interior decoration, image, green areas in the workplace, etc.

Finally, six questionnaires are interested in learning if the company has certain equipment, services or social advantages,and some of them ask if the employee makes use of them. The services considered in the different questionnaires arevaried: from child care centres or sports facilities, repeated in several cases, to cultural and educational services(auditorium, library or similar), which is suggested in the Japanese questionnaire.

Organisation of work

This section includes all the questions in the questionnaires related to the content of the job, the type of job, the rhythmof work, control and autonomy, participation and consultation, training, changes and their effects, social climate andviolence at work (see Table 15).

Most of the questionnaires analysed ask about the employee’s current occupation. Some of them add questions toidentify the employee’s usual tasks and activities, and others ask about the formal qualifications required to do the job.



33


Table 15: Organisation of work indicators in the employee questionnaires



AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Activities or type of work performed

Work tool Job content

Work with people Aptitude suitable for demands

Monotonous work, repetitive work and production line work

Complexity / difficulty Possibility of learning new things and developing new skills

Emotional involvement Possibility of obtaining help

Consequence of errors Acknowledgement and evaluation of work

Kind of work

Difficult to talk to colleagues

Conditions for the rhythm of work

Amount of work Interruptions Time available

Rhythm of work

High rhythm of work Autonomy Team work, rotation and occupation of several positions

Control and autonomy

Role at work Participation and consultation Training Changes at work and the effects of these changes

Social atmosphere and communication Conflict in general Physical violence Psychological violence Sexual harassment

Physical violence, bullying and intimidation

Discrimination

34

Another aspect refers to the machinery, equipment or tools used by the employee at work. Most of the questionnairesinclude questions related to this subject. In some cases, the employee is asked to choose from a list of machines,equipment or tools; in most cases, these questions are aimed at assessing the usage of certain machines or tools and forhow long. Germany combines the two procedures. The Canadian questionnaire asks if the technology has changed orbeen updated, and details of the training received by the employee in order to use it.

Work with computers is of interest, both regarding the time of use at work and at home; and also other aspects such as:the type of work performed on the computer, if the employee defines him/herself as a teleworker

20, the computer

programme used21

, the use of the Internet for professional purposes, etc.

Seven questionnaires refer to whether the type of work involves working directly with people (customers, clients,patients, passengers, pupils, etc.) and/or with what frequency. Austria and Sweden distinguish between work in generalwith non-employees in the workplace and work with people with particular problems (seriously ill, poor, etc.).

The suitability or otherwise of the demands of the job and the employee’s skills is considered in seven of thequestionnaires compared. Direct questions are used (they explicitly ask the employee to assess if the demands of the jobexceed or fall short of his/her skills), together with indirect questions based on indicators such as: whether the employeesare able to use their abilities or skills at work, if their current job could be done by someone with different or lowerqualifications, whether the employees consider that they have too much or too little responsibility, or need additionaltraining, etc. The Danish questionnaire asks the employees to assess their current skills, distinguishing between the job’sphysical and psychological demands.

Nearly all the questionnaires include one or several questions related to monotonous, repetitive or production line work.The topic of monotonous work is approached by a direct question asking if the employee is exposed to work of this kind,or by ordinal categorised questions on the frequency of exposure or the degree of monotony. Repetitive work isapproached along the same lines, with the difference that it is often associated with short-term tasks. Somequestionnaires expressly ask if the employee performs certain jobs classically defined as monotonous-repetitive:production line work (Spain, France) and work only requiring the employee to be observant (Sweden, France).

The questions on the complexity or difficulty of the job are also in direct terms (if the employee has to perform highlycomplex…very simple tasks and the frequency of exposure to these tasks). Alternatively, they may be indirectly basedon indicators such as whether the employees are required to solve unexpected problems or perform new tasks, whetherthey have to perform two tasks simultaneously, whether they have to manage on their own in difficult situations, orwhether a high level of attention or concentration is required.

In five questionnaires (Denmark, European Survey, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands), the employees are directly askedif their work provides them with the opportunity to learn new things and/or develop their skills, how often this occursand to what degree. In two questionnaires, the employees are directly asked for the exposure, degree and/or frequencywith which they feel emotionally involved with their job (Denmark, the Netherlands).



20The Dutch questionnaire includes a definition of the ‘teleworker’ concept (question 38).

21At the end of the Canadian questionnaire, there is a help list to identify the computer programmes used, in case the interviewee isnot sure what kind of programme he/she uses.

35


Another aspect considered in seven of the questionnaires analysed is related to whether the employee can, if necessary,obtain help and support at work. This topic is approached in terms of whether the employee can obtain help and supportfrom other people: colleagues, superiors, at work or elsewhere. The Danish questionnaire distinguishes betweenemployees receiving help and support from others and employees being able to talk to their colleagues and superiorsabout problems at work: in other words, whether their superiors are willing to listen. France also asks if the employeehas a sufficient number of colleagues.

The consequences of an error at work is an aspect considered in the questionnaires used in Spain, Germany and France.Spain asks the employee to evaluate the consequences of an error (none, slight, serious); Germany asks how often a smallerror could lead to important financial losses; and France provides a series of situations in which an error could haveserious consequences (economic, safety and health, sanctions applied to the employee, etc.).

Sweden and Denmark are concerned with the degree or frequency with which employees feel that their work isacknowledged by their superiors, colleagues or other people in the working environment, or society in general. Bothquestionnaires include one or several questions asking the employees to evaluate whether their work is usually importantor not important (the Danish questionnaire limits the question to the work performed in the last two months).

Difficulty in talking to colleagues is an aspect specifically approached in six questionnaires. They are often defined byquestions asking the employee to identify what prevents or hinders communication. Denmark and Sweden each take adifferent approach. The first asks the employees to indicate the frequency with which they are able to talk to theircolleagues at work; the second asks the employees if they are usually isolated or have, and this is unusual, too muchcontact with others.

Rhythm of workTwelve of the questionnaires analysed consider one or several of the dimensions that are included here under rhythm ofwork. Although there is obviously a significant relationship between these dimensions, they are broken down in order toidentify the orientation of the different questions that appear in the questionnaires under study.

Most of the questionnaires that cover rhythm of work ask what determines the rhythm of work. In this respect, theEuropean Survey, France and Spain present a closed question in which the response alternatives appear on a list ofpossible situations conditioning the rhythm of work. Also of interest is the frequency with which the employee has towork in certain conditions (for example, when there is a deadline for the work to be completed).

A small number of questionnaires include questions specifically related to the amount of work (largely referring to adouble dimension: too much or too little) and/or whether the employees have enough time in which to complete theirwork.

Another aspect considered in the questionnaires, which also affects the employee’s rhythm of work, is the existence ofinterruptions at work. In all, the variables of interest are: the existence and frequency of interruptions (in most cases,defined as situations when the employee has to leave what he/she is doing to do something different); the reasons (oneof the reasons included in the French questionnaire is the fact that work is interrupted because the employee ‘has nothingto do’); and their impact on performance.


36

High rhythm of work covers questions asking the employee about the frequency with which he/she is required to workquickly (hurrying to complete tasks) and/or the frequency with which work is ‘stressful’

22or ‘agitated’.

Autonomy and control Autonomy at work is considered in 12 of the questionnaires analysed. It covers a wide range of topics, enquiring whetherthe employee is able to influence them. Ordered from more to less frequent, the employee is asked if he/she can chooseor change:

the order in which tasks are completed (European Survey, Finland, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands);

methods or procedures (European Survey, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Spain, Netherlands);

breaks at work (European Survey, Portugal, Austria, France, Sweden, Spain). The French and Spanish questionnairesalso ask if the employee has to be replaced during breaks;

the work schedule (European Survey, Finland, France, Sweden);

holidays or days off, and whether unpaid leave is possible (European Survey, Portugal, Netherlands, Canada). ThePortuguese questionnaire, which spends a little more time on the topic of holidays, also asks if the employee choosesthe dates of his/her holidays, how they can be taken (all at once, in stages, etc.), if the employee took all the legalholidays in the previous year and, if not, the reason why;

the rhythm of work (European Survey, Spain);

the amount of work (Finland, Denmark);

the content of work (Denmark);

the deadlines established (France);

colleagues (Denmark).

Some questionnaires include questions related to whether employees evaluate the quality of their own work (EuropeanSurvey, Finland), if they have to respect strict quality standards (European Survey, France) and if the job requires, ingeneral or on specific occasions, the employee to take the initiative (Denmark, France, Netherlands).

Another group of aspects related to the employee’s autonomy refers to team work23

, rotation and the occupation ofseveral positions. The seven questionnaires that analyse this dimension of the work organisation set their questions tolearn if the employee works in one or several of these situations. The French questionnaire also asks employeesoccupying several positions whether this situation is beneficial from the perspective of interest in the work, their skillsor qualifications, and/or from the viewpoint of the workload.

Four questionnaires ask about the employee’s role at work. These questions seek to find out if the employees receiveclear, sufficient and non-contradictory instructions or demands (France, Denmark, Netherlands, Denmark), thus



22The Finnish questionnaire includes a definition of ‘stress’ (question 142).

23The Finnish and Canadian questionnaires include a definition of the concept of work groups or teams (questions 158 and 31g,respectively).

37


identifying their areas of responsibility (Denmark) and being sure of what is expected of them (Finland). Eachquestionnaire, as in the other aspects analysed above, emphasises different aspects of the subject.

Participation and consultationThe next content group relates to participation and consultation in the workplace. This aspect is considered by most ofthe questionnaires, and is one of the clearest examples of the different perspectives applied to how questions are defined.

This study classifies the questions according to the subject of their attention: in other words, if the question is related toparticipation and consultation with the company, the employee’s supervisor or initiatives by the employees themselves.More than one approach is common in a large number of questionnaires.

By company, the questions refer to whether the company welcomes employees’ suggestions and on what topics; what isthe participation policy in the company, and in relation to what topics. From the information viewpoint, the questionsask if the employees are informed in general, informed about decisions affecting their place of work, or informed inadvance about important decisions.

With reference to supervisor, the questions ask if the supervisor consults the employee in general, if the supervisorconsults about planning work, about important decisions, or whether he/she allows employees to take part inconversations about subjects which affect them.

Another option is to ask the employees directly if they make suggestions, influence decisions related to themselves andtheir work, or participate (for example, in organising work). On occasions, employees are asked whom they share theirviewpoints with, or whom they go to when they have a problem, and whether this leads to improvements. Attention isalso paid to whether these contacts occur as a group, or in organised meetings

24. Two countries, Canada and Denmark,

also ask employees if they belong to a union or other organisation in charge of negotiating agreements.

TrainingThe questions included under training ask whether the employee has received training related to his/her job (specificquestions on training or information on the prevention of occupational risks will be considered in the occupational riskprevention section). This aspect, like most others, is handled in different ways by different questionnaires; among others,there are differences between the types of training considered and the timeframe to which the questions refer.

Whereas some questionnaires ask in general about training activities (Germany, Portugal, Latvia), most of them are onlyinterested in training provided or paid for by the employer. The Canadian questionnaire handles these two activitiesseparately; it also specifically asks about ‘classroom training’ (including a definition of the concept). With regard to thetimeframe, many of the questionnaires limit the questions to a certain period of time, mostly the last year, but there arealso references to two-year (the Netherlands) and five-year (Germany) periods.

Besides asking if the employee has taken part in training activities of any kind, the questionnaires include additionalquestions such as: duration of the training received (European Survey, Sweden, Denmark, Canada) or the number ofcourses attended (Portugal, Canada), the date when the employee last received professional training or attended a


24The Canadian questionnaire specifically asks if the employee participates in a ‘task team’ or ‘labour-management committee’, andincludes an explanation of the activities of these groups (question 31e).

38

revision course (Germany), the primary purpose of the training (Canada, Spain), how the training was provided – in aclass room, at work, etc., (Spain, Germany, Canada). The questionnaire used in Canada spends most time on the subjectof training.

Changes at work, and their effectsAn aspect considered in four questionnaires, but which is especially significant in the German questionnaire, is relatedto the occurrence of changes at work and the possible effects of these changes on the employee’s situation.

There are general approaches concerning job changes or changes in the characteristics of a job, or detailed breakdownsof possible changes. This last option is used in the German questionnaire, which includes different questions on eightpossible changes: company, technical-productive, organisational, staff, etc. For each of these changes, the employee isasked if his/her personal situation has changed as a result.

The Netherlands approaches the subject in terms of whether changes have taken place. Germany and Finland considerboth the occurrence of changes and their effects (Finland asks the employee to identify on a scale whether these changeshave been positive or negative). Denmark considers the effects, and asks the employee if he/she is concerned about thepossibility of losing his/her job, of being transferred elsewhere, becoming underqualified, etc.

Social atmosphere and communicationThis aspect is considered in nine questionnaires. The social atmosphere is often approached by asking employees toevaluate their relationships with colleagues, superiors or subordinates (Finland, Spain, Estonia, Denmark); and/or bydefining positive (support, stimulus, comfortable atmosphere) and negative (competitiveness, mistrust, rigid andregulated atmosphere) situations at work, and asking employees to identify themselves with one or the other, on differentlevels or to different degrees (Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, Latvia).

Finland and France include the communication factor, in the sense of whether it is sufficient, in the first case, or askinghow the employee is informed of important instructions, in the second.

Also included under this heading is the question related to gender of the immediate superior, which is found in theGerman and European Survey questionnaires. This question can be taken as an independent variable and analysed inrelation to different sections of the organisation of work.

Physical violence, bullying and intimidation This content grouping includes questions referring to the different types of conflict or violence found by employees intheir working environment: general or undefined, physical violence, psychological violence, sexual harassment anddifferent types of discrimination. In one way or another, this topic is considered in nine of the questionnaires analysed

25.

Three questionnaires include a series of questions about whether the employee is or has been involved in any type ofconflict in general. They also want to know whom this problem involves – superiors, colleagues or others (France,Sweden), its frequency (Sweden) and how the problem is solved (Canada).



25Although the Spanish survey of 1999, which is studied in this report, did not consider this topic, it is included in the current 2002edition.

39


In six questionnaires, questions are aimed at knowing if the employee suffers from physical violence or the threat ofphysical violence at work (these may be the subjects of different questions). They ask who exercises this violence(European Survey, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Denmark), whether the violence or threat of violence occurs at workor when travelling to and from work (Finland), the number of times it has occurred (United Kingdom, Denmark) or thefrequency with which it occurs (Sweden, Netherlands).

In the specific case of the European Survey, a distinction is made between the employee having been subject to this typeof violence at work and the employee being aware that this type of violence occurs at work. This distinction is appliedto all the types of violence and discrimination on which questions are presented.

The terms referring to psychological violence in the questions vary from one questionnaire to the other. They refer towhether the employee has been subject to or felt:

‘unjustly criticised...., harassed or shown up in front of others’ (Germany);

‘intimidation’ (Netherlands, European Survey);

‘bullying (harassment, mental violence, teasing, nagging, offending somebody)’26

(Finland);

‘personal persecution in the form of unkind words or behaviour’ (Sweden);

‘unpleasant teasing’ (Denmark).

The questions also want to know who exercises this violence (Denmark, Netherlands), the number of times it hasoccurred (Denmark) and the frequency with which it occurs (Sweden, Netherlands).

Another aspect considered in the questionnaires analysed27

is whether the employee suffers from undesired sexualattention or sexual harassment. Like the types of violence described above, the questions seek to determine whoexercises this violence (Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark), the number of times it has occurred (Denmark) and thefrequency with which it occurs (Finland, Sweden, Netherlands).

Possible discrimination at work is studied in the Swedish and Finnish questionnaires and the European Survey. TheSwedish questionnaire asks about sexual discrimination based on gender, and is centred on the frequency with whichemployees find themselves in situations of this kind

28. The European Survey asks the employee if he/she has been subject

at work to discrimination for different reasons: sex, age, nationality, race or ethnic group, disability or sexual orientation;or whether he/she is aware that it exists.


26The heading of question 167 in the Finnish questionnaire includes an explanation of the term ‘bullying’.

27The heading of question 168 in the Finnish questionnaire includes an explanation of the term ‘sexual harassment’.

28Question 63 in the Swedish questionnaire includes an explanation of the term ‘harassment/discrimination for reasons of gender’.

40

The Finnish questionnaire examines gender and age discrimination. With regard to the first type of discrimination, thequestions are aimed at knowing if men and women are considered the same at work, and if the possible discriminationis against men or women. As for age discrimination, the structure is the same, asking if employees of different ages areequal, and if the possible discrimination is against young people or old people. Further questions ask whether theexperience of the older employees is used at work or whether the employee considers that ageing will imply moreproblems at work.


The different aspects included under this heading can be classified as follows (see Table 16):

Prevention resources.

Employee representatives involved in prevention management.

Preventive activities: medical check-ups, risk prevention training and information, evaluation of working conditionsand other activities.

Employee satisfaction with work and working conditions.

Five of the questionnaires analysed ask about the existence of prevention services or resources in the company, althoughthere is no consensus concerning the services of interest or the nomenclature used to describe these services. Thequestions refer to the existence of:

Occupational health service (Finland, Sweden).

The Swedish questionnaire not only asks about its existence, but whether the employee has been in contact with theservice during the last year.

The Finnish questionnaire includes a broad range of questions related to the type of service provided, the town wherethe occupational health service provider is located, whom the employee contacts with health queries, if the careprovided by the service has helped the employee to maintain his/her ability to work, if he/she is satisfied in generalwith the nature of the service (impartiality, confidential activity and data, how easy it is to make an appointment).

Safety organisation or safety representative (Denmark).

Occupational health service and occupational safety and hygiene service (Portugal).

The questions are structured alike for both services: existence, type of service (internal, external, inter-company) andthe employee’s general assessment of how the services work.

Figures or resources for the prevention of occupational risks (Spain).

The question attempts to ascertain if the company has resources for risk prevention in general, and what kind ofresources they are, following the classification established in Spanish legislation (external prevention service, internalprevention service, shared prevention service, or whether the company owner is personally responsible forprevention).



41


Table 16: Occupational risk prevention indicators in the employee questionnaires


Employee representatives in prevention management is considered in the questionnaires used in Spain, Estonia andSweden. Spain asks about the existence of legal figures, such as prevention delegates and safety and health committees.Estonia asks about the existence of workers’ representatives in the labour environment and how the employee valuestheir activities. Sweden asks the employee if he/she is involved in labour environment management as a committeemember, or as a supervisor or boss.

Preventive activitiesNine questionnaires ask about preventive activities at work. The activities most frequently mentioned are medical check-ups, risk prevention training, information about occupational risks and an evaluation of working conditions.

With regard to medical check-ups, the questionnaires include questions about whether the company gives check-ups toemployees (Germany), if they are regular check-ups (Portugal), if the interviewee has had a medical check-up (Germany,Finland, Spain, Estonia) and the date of the last one. Spain also asks for the reason behind the check-up, if the employeewas informed of the results and how the employee evaluates the efficacy of this activity.

The questionnaire used in Estonia also includes a question addressed to the employee on the importance that theemployer gives, on a scale from one to five: to this activity, to direct responsibility for his employee’s health, and to otherpreventive activities such as training and an evaluation of working conditions.

The questions on training activities basically take two forms: either about safety and health training in general (Portugal,Spain) or about training related to specific risks. The latter refers in particular to posture (Germany), accidents at work(Estonia), first aid (Estonia) or the handling of certain dangerous materials (Japan).

The Finnish questionnaire includes the most questions concerning the information provided to employees. They askwhether the employee has received information from the occupational health service or the workplace on a wide varietyof aspects: the products handled (powder, gases, solvents, chemical irritants, etc.), certain risks (noise, vibrations, stress),accident prevention, working methods, working postures and equipment, first aid, how personal protective equipmentshould be used, how to develop one’s occupational skills, relationships at the workplace, and social interaction and lifestyle. The employee is also asked if he/she wishes to receive information from the occupational health service on workor working conditions.


AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Prevention resources Employees represented in prevention management

Medical check-ups Risk prevention training Information on risks Evaluation of working conditions

Preventive activities

Other activities Satisfaction in general with work and working conditions

42

The other questionnaires that consider this subject are centred on one or several aspects of work. They seek to know theavailability of information on professional risks for employees (Portugal), the level of information on the use ofmaterials, instruments or products (European Survey), and whether the employee has received information on the resultsof the medical check-up and the risk study conducted (Spain).

Five questionnaires ask the employee if the employer has conducted or is conducting surveys or studies related toworking conditions. The Spanish questionnaire asks further questions: what aspects have been studied, if the employeehas been informed of the results, if measures have been taken as a result of the study and what measures were taken. TheFinnish questionnaire is interested in knowing how the occupational health service is involved in these activities: if arepresentative of the service has visited the workplace to verify the working conditions, how familiar the occupationalhealth service is with the working conditions, and if the service has collaborated in organising the survey or workplacedevelopment.

Other prevention activities include whether the company organises drills for emergency situations (Portugal); or whetherthe occupational health service has organised health promotion activities (weight loss, neck and shoulder exercises, orsupport for giving up smoking), and if the employee has participated (Finland).

Finally, most of the questionnaires analysed include general questions concerning the employee’s satisfaction with thejob, with working conditions, or with certain aspects of the job, and even with his/her life in general.

Damage to health

All the questionnaires addressed to employees, except Austria and United Kingdom, consider damage to employees’health. The different aspects considered can be classified as follows (see Table 17):

Accidents at work: occurrence of accidents at work, their causes, absence from work because of the accidents, anddamage to health suffered as a result of these accidents.

Health problems: in general and caused by work, causes of health problems due to work, and absence from workbecause of health problems.

Estimation of the risk of losing one’s health because of work.

Difficulties at work because of health problems.

Changes in working conditions due to health problems.

Evaluation of health and ability to work.

Healthy lifestyles.



43


Table 17: Health damage indicators in the employee questionnaires


Eight of the questionnaires analysed ask the employee if he/she has suffered an accident at work over a certain timeperiod. Some questionnaires ask about the number and type of accidents, the place of occurrence, if the employee wasoff sick and for how long, damage or disability resulting from the accident, if it was reported, if the employee receiveda pension or any compensation, etc.

As for the causes of work accidents, five of the questionnaires include questions (closed, open or of both types) aimedat knowing the employee’s opinion. The Portuguese questionnaire asks not only about accidents but also about the causesof illnesses due to work.

The damage to health resulting from the accident is considered in three of the questionnaires. Two focus on whether theaccident caused a disability and the resultant level of disability (Finland and Portugal), while the third is interested in thephysical damage and parts of the body affected (Denmark).

Most of the questionnaires analysed consider the possible health problems affecting workers. Some of the questionnairesanalyse them from a double perspective: health problems in general and health problems that the employee considers arecaused by work. The questions are usually related to: number of visits to the doctor; pain in certain parts of the body;discomfort or alterations, physical, emotional, or behavioural; diseases and/or disabilities.


AT CA DE DK ES EF EE FR FI JP LV NL PT SE UK Occurrence Causes Absence from work due to occupational accidents

Accidents at work

Health damaged because of the accident

Health problems in general

Health problems caused by work

Causes of the health problems related to work

Health problems

Absence from work because of health problems

Estimation of the risk of losing one’s health because of work

Difficulties at work because of health problems

Changes in working conditions because of health problems

Evaluation of the interviewee’s own health and capacity for work

Healthy lifestyles

44

Questions relate to the duration of the absence from work due to occupational accidents, health problems in general orcaused by work, or for other reasons. The Swedish questionnaire introduces a different aspect, asking about attendanceat work even when the employee feels ill

29.

An aspect considered in six of the questionnaires analysed is the employee’s estimation of the risk of losing his/her healthdue to work. In two cases, this estimation is directly linked to the risk of suffering an accident at work (Spain andFinland), and another four apply a more general approach (European Survey, Denmark, Latvia and Estonia). In theEstonian questionnaire, the employees are asked to choose, from a list, the aspects of their job that they consider aredangerous for their health.

A further indicator used is the existence of possible difficulties at work due to the employee’s health problems (Canada,Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal); whether changes to working conditions or special working conditions arerequired (Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden) and whether these changes are possible (Canada, Finland,Sweden).

Included in this broad topic related to damage to health, is the employees’ general assessment of their own health(Netherlands, Japan, Denmark); the employees’ assessment of their own health compared to others of the same age(Finland); and/or the employees’ assessment of their ability to work (Finland); their ability to work, distinguishingbetween physical and psychological demands (Finland); and their future ability to perform the same work (Finland,European Survey).

Finally, the employee’s lifestyle is contemplated in two of the questionnaires analysed. The Danish and Finnishquestionnaires include a series of questions on physical exercise, smoking, alcohol, eating habits (where they eat onworking days, or the frequency with which they eat fruit, vegetables...), and also ask for their height and weight.

Analysis of the questionnaires addressed to employers

The following questionnaires are analysed in this section:

Canada: Workplace and Employee Survey 1999

Estonia: Working Environment Survey 2000

Japan: Survey on Labour Environment 1996

Spain: National Working Conditions Survey 1999

USA: National Occupational Exposure Survey 1981-1983

The topics considered in the questionnaires addressed to employers have been divided into four groups: company data,working conditions, occupational risk prevention and damage to health.



29Question 83 in the Swedish questionnaire reads as follows: ‘How often during the past 12 months has it happened that you haveattended work although, considering your state of health, you should have reported sick?’

45


Company data

As in the analysis of the employee questionnaires, this section will consider all the questions included in thequestionnaires analysed requesting company data. The five questionnaires analysed ask for this information, withdifferent emphasis on certain aspects (see Table 18).

Table 18: Company information indicators in the employer questionnaires

Nearly all the questionnaires analysed ask the employer about the company or workplace’s primary economic activity.In the US, in addition to asking about the company’s main products, services, etc., they also ask how long the activityhas been in operation.

All the questionnaires ask about the number of employees in the company and/or place of work. The Canadianquestionnaire also asks if the workplace has seasonal employment, during which months and the maximum number ofemployees involved.

Further questions on the work force include a series of variables such as gender (Spain, USA), number of productionand office/administrative employees (USA, Japan

30), or whether it is possible for some employees to work at home

(Spain).

The type of company, in addition to the previous aspects, also involves questions on different indicators such as: whetherthe company has foreign shareholders (Canada, Estonia) and the scope of its marketing activities: local, national,international (Canada, Estonia).

In Canada, a series of questions relates to the company’s balance sheet for the previous year; whether the place of workparticipates in government aid programmes; the number, location and importance of its competitors; and the company’scompetitive level.

The Canadian questionnaire includes a wide range of questions concerning the company’s employment policy: thenumber of employees hired over the last year, and by professional category; the existence of temporary dismissals; theexistence of vacancies; how vacancies are filled (with personnel from the same centre, from the same company or fromelsewhere), and if this method varies for the different professional categories; the number of job openings lasting fourmonths or longer, the reason, and the professional category involved.


Canada Estonia Japan Spain USA Economic activity Number of employees Type of company Employment policy Location

30The Japanese questionnaire includes an explanation of the meaning of production workers and office and administrative workers(question I.2).

46

The person responsible for the company is also asked about the town or type of location in which the company isestablished (Estonia, Japan) or how long the facility has been located there (Canada).

Working conditions

The aspects considered in relation to working conditions in the company can be classified as: employment conditions,working hours, exposure to risk factors, individual protective equipment, participation and consultation, training, changeand its effects, and labour conflicts (see Table 19).

Table 19: Working conditions indicators in the employer questionnaires

Within the employment conditions group, two aspects are addressed in the questionnaires: the contractual relationshipwith employees, and salaries.

The Canadian and Spanish questionnaires ask for the breakdown of staff by their contractual relationship with theemployer. The Canadian questionnaire distinguishes between two groups: full-time or indefinite employees and otheremployees, contractors, etc. In Spain, distinction is made between four groups: staff (indefinite and contracts establishedfor a specific period), contractors or sub-contractors (including self-employed workers), temporary workers hired byagencies, and others. The employer is also asked for the number of contracts or sub-contracts (including self-employedworkers) in force at the time of the interview.

Salaries are considered in the Canadian questionnaire. The content of the questions is aimed at knowing: whether thesalary system includes incentives (individual, based on productivity or quality, related to responsibility, profit-sharing)and which groups of employees are affected; the total gross payroll and total non-salary benefit expenditure; thedistribution of employees as full-time or part-time according to different salary categories; whether the companyprovides non-salary benefits such as pension plans, life insurance, medical care, etc., and which employees can benefitfrom them.

The distribution of the work force according to number of working hours in the company is an aspect considered in thequestionnaires used in Spain, USA and Canada. The latter also asks for the amount of overtime and how it is paid for.

Concerning risk factors for the employees’ safety and health in the workplace, the Spanish questionnaire presents theemployer with an open question. The questionnaire used in Estonia, however, approaches the same subject with acategorised question, asking the employer if certain work factors (high/low temperature, deficient lighting, noise,



Canada Estonia Japan Spain USA Contractual relationship Employment

conditions Earnings Working hours Exposure to certain factors involving risks for the health of the workers

Individual protective equipment Participation and consultation Training Changes at work and the effects of these changes Labour conflicts

47


vibrations, powder, dangerous chemicals, lack of ventilation, forced postures, physical loads, monotony and mentalstress) constitute risk factors for employees’ health. At another point, the questionnaire asks the employers to evaluate,on a scale from one to 10, the risk of their employees’ health being damaged at work.

The Japanese questionnaire has a concrete and detailed approach to possible risks. It lists 14 activities or occupationsthat it defines as dangerous in so far as they can affect employees’ health if so established by law or ‘if the method orenvironment are unsuitable’. It specifies, among others, working with: lead, powder, organic solvents, radiation, noise,vibrations, VDT, handling heavy loads, etc. For each of these, it asks for the number of employees involved and, forsome of them, whether the employee concerned is a superior or boss.

It also breaks down these risk activities into sub-tasks: work with lead (eight tasks), powder (nine tasks), organic solvents(12 tasks), specific organic solvents (17 substances or groups of substances); asking how many employees are affectedby each one and if measures have been taken, such as isolation of the facilities, local ventilation, total ventilation or otheractions. With regard to organic solvents, it also requests the company’s consumption in kilos.

The questionnaires used in Estonia and in Spain are interested to know if the company has acquired or modifiedindividual protective equipment. In Estonia, it asks for the money spent on this or the importance that the company givesto providing equipment (if the company has spent no money in this respect during the previous year). In Spain, it asksif individual protection equipment has been acquired, replaced or modified during the previous year; and the samequestion applies to collective means of protection.

The US questionnaire also considers the subject, and is interested not only in the need for this equipment in the company,but also for the measures taken to guarantee its use. After asking if there are areas in which the use of personal protectionequipment is required and/or recommended, it asks who provides the equipment and who is responsible for itsavailability and maintenance. It concludes by asking if measures are taken when employees refuse to use protectiveequipment or fail to use it properly, and whether these measures include economic sanctions (this question is also askedwith reference to situations in which employees are found to be breaking safety rules).

The participation of employees in different aspects of work affecting them is investigated in the Canadian, Spanish, USand Estonian questionnaires.

The first two approach the subject in two ways: in the first place, they want to know who makes the decisions (Canada),or if employees participate (Spain) in a series of considerations such as the planning of work, choice of equipment,training, etc. They then ask about which of the procedures on a list provided are present in the workplace. The Canadianquestionnaire also includes a question asking the employers to evaluate the relative importance of different factors totheir business strategy, one of which is an increase in the participation or involvement of their employees.

The US questionnaire asks if and which unions are active in the company. The Estonian questionnaire includes a 10-point scale question asking the employers to assess how they consider employee suggestions with regard to improvingworking conditions.

Three further aspects under working conditions are only considered in the Canadian questionnaire: job-related training,the existence of organisational and technological changes at work and their effects on the company, and labour conflicts.

Unlike the other questionnaires, the Canadian questionnaire asks whether the company’s personnel have receivedtraining related to their work (specific training on the prevention of occupational risks is studied in the next section).


48

This questionnaire asks about the training provided or paid for by the company in the last year. It wants to know whichand how many employees receive this training, its content and its cost.

Another aspect examined at great length in the Canadian questionnaire relates to the occurrence of changes at work andthe possible effects of these changes on the company’s situation. It considers both organisational changes andtechnological changes.

With regard to the former, its asks the employer if the workplace has experienced any of the following 14 organisationalchanges: more integration of different functions between areas; an increase in the degree of centralisation; employmentlay-offs to cut spending as part of a reorganisation process; a fall in the degree of centralisation; more dependence ontemporary employees; more dependence on part-time employees; process re-engineering; more overtime; adoption offlexible working hours; reduced number of managerial levels; more dependence on rotation or multi-tasking;implementation of total quality standards; more dependence on product or service providers (outsourcing); more firmscollaborating in R&D, production, marketing or other areas.

It also asks which organisational changes affected the largest number of employees and, with regard to the mostsignificant change, what were its objectives and what was its impact on the workplace.

In relation to technological changes, the Canadian questionnaire asks if computer-assisted technology has beenintroduced, if computers are used or if improvements have been made to other technologies or machinery. All threeinstances ask about the date of the most recent update, the number and category of employees using the technology, thecost of its installation, the number of employees who received relevant training and the duration of that training.

As with organisational changes, it examines the effects: asking what effects the most expensive technology has had onproduction factors, on market shares, on the interaction with customers and suppliers, on response to governmentalrequirements, on the number of executive and non-executive employees, on their responsibilities, and its global effectsin general. There is also a question on which factors make it difficult to install new technology in the workplace.

Finally, conflict at work is considered in the Canadian questionnaire, including questions about collective protestactivities (strikes, work-to-rule, company closure, slow work) in the last year and about how employees’ discussions,claims or complaints are handled in the workplace.


The aspects considered in the questionnaires under occupational risk prevention can be classified as follows: preventionresources, employee representation in prevention management, preventive activities and a general assessment of safetyand health at work (see Table 20).



49


Table 20: Occupational risk prevention indicators in the employer questionnaires

The questionnaires used in Estonia, Spain and USA ask the employer what system or resources for the prevention ofoccupational risks are in place in the company. In the latter two countries, further questions address the characteristicsof the system in place: number of specialists, functions, time given, etc.

Employee representation in prevention management is considered in the questionnaires used in Spain and Estonia. As intheir respective questionnaires addressed to employees, Spain asks about the existence of legal figures, such as theprevention delegate and the Health and Safety Committee; while Estonia asks about the existence of employeerepresentatives in the labour environment. Spain also asks for the number of prevention delegates, and if they havereceived training since they were named.

Under risk prevention activities, the planning of preventive activities is an aspect considered by the questionnaires usedin Spain, Estonia and the USA. The first two ask in general if a plan of activities has been prepared. In the US, thequestion is whether different preventive activities (training, evaluation of specific risks, etc.) respond to a regular andscheduled plan. Spain also asks the employer if risk prevention is integrated in all the activities and supervisorydecisions.

Medical check-ups are considered in four questionnaires, with the USA and Japan spending more time on the subject.The Spanish questionnaire asks if medical check-ups have been given in the company over the last two years; while theEstonian questionnaire asks how much the company has spent on protecting its employees’ health, or the importancegiven by the employer to this activity (if no money has been spent in the last year).

The US questionnaire wants to know if the company performs different types of medical check-ups and if they includeall or some of the employees. The four types of medical examination considered are: periodical, before a new employeeis hired or starts work, when employees return to work after an illness, and when their contracts come to an end. It alsoasks the employers if they keep regular health records on new employees, how long medical and other health records arefiled, and how long the personal records of people who have left the firm are kept on file.

The Japanese questionnaire is interested in aspects related to monitoring the health of employees who have been or areperforming certain jobs: working with powder, lead, organic solvents, manufacturing special chemicals or any otheractivity involving their handling, or working with gases which are dangerous for the teeth and gums. For each, it asks ifemployees have undergone special medical examinations; with regard to lead, it specifically asks if employees need and


Canada Estonia Japan Spain USA Prevention resources Employees represented in prevention management

Planning of preventive activities

Medical check-ups Risk prevention training and information

Study of working conditions

Preventive activities

Other activities or improvements

General assessment of safety and health in the company

50

have received pulmonary examinations. In all these cases, the employer is requested to provide information on thereasons for a medical examination, the number of visits and the number of people affected.

Employee access to safety and health training and information is studied in four of the questionnaires analysed. TheSpanish questionnaire distinguishes between risk prevention training in general and training specific to certain positionsor functions. Among other aspects, it is also interested in knowing if any of the company’s executives have attendedcourses or chats on prevention, and if each employee receives direct information about the risks affecting his/her job andthe measures to be applied.

The questionnaire used in the US asks the employer if the company has a regular and formal safety training programmefor its employees, and whether this includes regularly or routinely evaluating the employee’s familiarity with safetystandards.

Four questionnaires ask if the company has conducted a study of its working conditions. Spain and Estonia requestinformation in general on whether the company has completed an initial risk assessment (Spain), or if the company hasspent anything on measuring risk factors in the labour environment (Estonia).

The questionnaires used in Japan and the US include specific questions on evaluations of certain risks. The Japanesequestionnaire continues its emphasis on employees and jobs related to the manufacture or handling of certain dangerousproducts (lead, powder, organic solvents, specific chemicals). It asks if an assessment has been made on the atmospherein which work goes on with these products, and the results of this assessment for each of the pollutants and workplacesconcerned.

The US questionnaire asks whether the company has a programme to regularly control different physical or chemicalagents or safety inspections. In relation to chemical pollutants, it asks about the procedures used to make the assessment;with regard to safety inspections, it asks if the results are drafted in writing and if they are available for the employeesaffected. In general, employers are also asked how long they keep inspection records.

The Estonian questionnaire includes two questions asking if the company has been inspected by the national agencyresponsible, and requesting the results of the inspection.

Four questionnaires ask about other activities or the adoption of concrete measures by the company to improve safetyand health. The US questionnaire asks if chemicals have been replaced and if major equipment and processes have beenreplaced in the last five years (process re-design, process closure, etc.), and requests the primary reason behind suchchanges.

The Spanish questionnaire presents a long list of activities and asks which have been performed in the company forsafety and health reasons. The list includes: altering or updating facilities, machines or equipment, replacing dangerousproducts or materials, preparing an emergency plan (evacuation plan, fire drill), modifying jobs to improve theirergonomic aspects, etc., or establishing priorities or efficacy controls applied to preventive activities. A specific groupof questions relates to the acquisition or renewal of machinery or equipment, asking about the frequency andcharacteristic of the investments made in these fields by companies in the industrial and service sectors.

The Japanese questionnaire requests information on the need to improve or effective improvements that have been madeto a wide range of labour aspects, together with the difficulties found when implementing such measures. The Estonianquestionnaire asks open questions on which aspects require improvement and how much they would cost.



51


Both the Spanish and the Estonian questionnaires enquire about the employer’s involvement in risk prevention. Spainasks employers if they believe that company management can effectively influence the reduction of occupationalaccidents and illnesses, and the reason why. The Estonian questionnaire asks employers how much they agree with thefollowing statements: a) a good working environment leads to effective activities, b) the working environment is only abackground element, and too much attention paid to it could hinder work.

Finally, the questionnaire used in Estonia includes a series of general questions on safety and health in the company.These questions ask employers to evaluate their working environment compared with other similar companies in thecountry, or to evaluate, on a scale from one to 10, the working conditions in their company.

Damage to health

Damage to employees’ health is also examined in the questionnaires addressed to employers. The aspects considered canbe classified as: occurrence of occupational accidents and illnesses, causes of the accidents, economic cost of accidentsand illnesses, absenteeism and turnover (see Table 21).

Table 21: Damage to health indicators in the employer questionnaires

The questionnaires used in Estonia and Spain ask the employer if an accident has occurred in the company in the lastthree years (Estonia) or two years (Spain). The US questionnaire asks the interviewee to provide different data on theaccidents at work and illnesses affecting the company’s employees.

The Estonian questionnaire asks employers about the cause of occupational accidents: whether they are due to workingconditions or employee negligence.

The Spanish and Estonian questionnaires consider how companies account for the cost of illnesses or accidents. The firstasks employers if they have evaluated the economic loss derived from employees’ illnesses and, if so, requests the figurefor the previous year; it also asks about the repercussion of seasonal illnesses, occupational illnesses and other healthproblems on the company’s activity. When the employer responds that accidents have occurred in the company, theSpanish questionnaire asks if the workplace has information on the annual economic cost of accidents, and whichaspects, selected from a list provided, are entered into the accounts.

The US questionnaire examines the records on absenteeism and the information contained in these records. It also asksthe employer for the rate of unexpected absenteeism (days per employee and year) and the annual staff turnover amongpermanent employees in non-administrative areas (expected by management to work for the company for more than ayear).

The Canadian questionnaire is also interested in this aspect. It asks the employer for the number of employees who havepermanently left their jobs in the last year, and the reason why they no longer work in the company (voluntarily,involuntary dismissal, special redundancy programmes, etc.).


Canada Estonia Japan Spain USA Occurrence of accidents and illness Cause of accidents Economic cost of accidents and illness Absenteeism and staff turnover

52

This report is the result of locating and studying a series of national working conditions surveys conducted in differentcountries in Europe and elsewhere. This study has led to a description of the general characteristics of these surveys, ofthe methods used, and a detailed breakdown of the questions included in the different questionnaires.

The idea of the project was to gather and systematise all this information. In spite of the fact that it was not possible toobtain all the information desired, with the result that important studies have therefore not been analysed, this projectprovides information that was previously lacking in the field. This analysis could be a good starting point to increaseinterest in the study and improve this specific type of research, in particular among professionals working in the area.

After describing the variety of methods and technical procedures used in the different surveys, this could be the time toevaluate and compare the virtues of each of the procedures and tools used, so that they can be incorporated, if advisable,into the different national research areas. This report also provides a useful opportunity to discuss the different methodsand even to reconsider the very definition of working conditions.

In this respect, some questions arise from the analysis performed, and are as yet unanswered:

What is the best frequency with which to conduct national working conditions surveys? In other words, what timeinterval should separate each of the editions of a survey? It has to be sufficient to prevent the results from being sosimilar that they fail to justify the investment involved, and limited enough to be able to detect change processes.

Should longitudinal studies be used in addition to cross-section studies? These studies increasingly appear in additionto cross-section working conditions surveys, and they are important from a qualitative viewpoint. With thisperspective, it is possible to establish accurate relationships between employees’ health and certain aspects of theirworking conditions; it is also possible to gain better access to the analysis of certain issues, such as for instance, theemployee’s occupational history. It is true that longitudinal studies mean costly resources, planning processes andtechnical infrastructures, and that it is also difficult to maintain the sample over time. However, it is no less true thatthey show great potential in the occupational safety and health field.

How can a questionnaire be kept relatively stable over time? One widespread problem among the professionals whodesign and conduct working conditions surveys is the difficulty of maintaining the data collection tool more or lessunaltered in the different editions of the surveys. Between one edition and another, they reconsider the approach todifferent topics, new topics of interest arise, etc., which change, and often excessively increase, the number ofquestions contained in the questionnaires. In addition to other problems, the changes make it difficult, if notimpossible, to compare results over time. Perhaps a satisfactory way of mitigating this problem would be to adopt thetheoretical system which this report has defined as ‘semi-fixed’. With this system, it would be necessary to applydiscipline to the fixed or stable part of the questionnaire, the medium-term objectives of which would have to be well-defined. However, there would be another, flexible part which could accept the specific development of certain issueswhich could change from one edition to another.

Where should the employee be interviewed, at home or at work? The advantages and disadvantages of the twoprocedures are subject to debate, for instance, in relation to the National Working Conditions Survey in Spain.

Should the employee interview be supplemented by an employer interview? There can be no doubt that the employeris a key informant, and that some surveys which currently only access employees are now considering interviewingemployers too. It is also true that, where surveys already study the two perspectives, there are growing demands forthe employees’ representatives to be interviewed as well.

After analysing the questionnaires, different questions arise on the very concept of working conditions. What aspectsnecessarily have to be included in a working conditions survey? Should the questionnaires consider, or pay moreattention to, issues like the employee’s occupational history, interaction between work and social life, etc?

Conclusions


4

53


There are many more questions related, for instance, to the population under study (economic activities, type ofemployees, etc.), to the integration of working conditions surveys in other national research areas, to samplingstrategies, etc.

The primary conclusion of this study, then, is that there are many ways of approaching working conditions in surveys,not only from the methodological perspective, but also from the viewpoint of the topics considered. In other words, thereare different approaches to the same aspect and different procedures aimed at the same objectives.

Although this analysis is necessarily descriptive, and, in a way, an approximation of the varied profiles of nationalworking conditions surveys, it could be a starting point from which to increase the knowledge of this type of survey, andto develop interest in a greater interaction between the professionals who perform this kind of research. This interactionwould make it possible, in addition to answering the above and other questions, to update the basic information availablefor studies such as this one.


54

Survey name (EN): European Working Conditions Survey (2000/1)

Acronym: EF

Institution: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

This survey, in common with the 1990/91 and the 1995/96 surveys, was elaborated in closecooperation with national survey institutes and with Eurostat.

Type of org.: EU agency based in Ireland

Editions: 1990/1, 1995/6, 2000/1

Next forecast ed.: 2005

Objectives: - To provide an overview of the state of working conditions in the EU;

- To indicate the nature and content of changes affecting the workforce and the quality of work.

Territorial scope: International

Population: This survey covers the total active population of the respective nationalities of the EuropeanUnion Member States, aged 15 years and over, resident in each of the Member States.Retired and unemployed persons, housewives and students, etc., were excluded. Non-Europeans were included, on condition that they could be interviewed in the nationallanguage(s) of the country where they work.

Classif. Economic Activities: Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE Rev. 1)

Classif. Occupation: International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88(COM))

Sample: Sampling strategy: The basic sample design is a multi-stage random sampling, called‘random walk’. This method, whereby interviewers are given precise guidelines, has theadvantage of not requiring a complete poll basis. Interviewers are provided with an itineraryindicating at what stages they should carry out interviews. Although there might be someminor differences between one country and another, all national poll institutes have tocomply with the guidelines.

- The process can be summarised as follows:

- The Eurostat territorial breakdown (NUTS II) is adopted for each country. This coding does not exist everywhere (e.g. Denmark), in which case national institutes have to find the most appropriate regional/local breakdown.

- Population density is based on urban size. Each institute is given country tables.

- On the basis of the two points above, a list of sampling points is established. In general,postal codes (the most detailed territorial breakdown) are used to randomly select the sampling points.

- Next, one or several starting points are selected for each sampling point and the interviewers follow the random walk procedure.

- When several persons in a household fall within the scope of the survey, the selection isbased on the first birthday method (selecting the person whose next birthday is closest tothe interview date).

Annex: Data sheets of the surveysanalysed


55


Sample size: around 1,500 workers were interviewed in each Member State, with theexception of Luxembourg where the number of persons interviewed totalled 527. Total:21,703 interviews.

Weighting: For the European survey on working conditions, the variables selected for eachcountry are: region, city size, gender, age, economic activity and occupation. The referenceused for the distribution is the 1997 Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS is based onnational surveys which have very large samples (therefore deemed to be reliable) andidentical categories. The EF weighting was carried out on the basis of the LFS which meansthat its distribution by region, locality, size, gender, age, economic activity and occupationis identical to that of the LFS distribution.

Interviews: Type of interviews: face to face

Location of interviews: interview at home

Subjects consideredin the questionnaire: Exposure to physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents,

exposure to biological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain,work organisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equalopportunities, violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others:working time arrangements / outside work activities.

Bibliographicalreferences: Paoli, P. and Merllié, D., European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions, Third European survey on working conditions 2000, Luxembourg, Office forOfficial Publications of the European Communities, 2001 ISBN 92-897-0130-7. Alsoavailable in French.

Secondary analysis: Research based on secondary analysis of the Third Survey dataset wascarried out in 2000/1. Nine publications have been published:see http://www.eurofound.eu.int/working/3wc/3wc_second.htm

Website: http://www.eurofound.eu.int/working/surveys.htm

Informationpublic/accessible: Raw data: Dataset available in SPSS format upon request from interested researchers

Questionnaires: Included as annex to report

Coordinatorsand contact: Agnès Parent-Thirion, Research coordinator, Working Conditions

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Tel: +353-1-2044179E-mail: [email protected]


56

Country: Austria

Survey Name (EN): Working Conditions - Supplementary Programme of Austrian Mikrozensus

Survey Name (orig): Mikrozensus-Sonderprogramm Arbeitsbedingungen

Institution: Statistics Austria

Type of org.: Governmental

Editions: 1980, 1985, 1991, 1994, 1999

Next forecast ed.: Not yet fixed

Objectives: Mikrozensus-Sonderprogramm Arbeitsbedingungen comprises three ranges of topics:

‘Standard questions’ about the population;

Conditions of work: job related stress and environmental conditions at work;

Questions regarding income.

Territorial scope: National

Population: Active in all the economic activities in private households (not institutions).

Population size: 3,800,000 households

Sample: Sampling strategy: stratified random samplingRegister used for the sample: housing census and register of yearly built dwellingsSample size: 30,000 (1% sample of all households)



Subjects consideredin the questionnaire: Exposure to physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents,

exposure to biological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain,work organisation issues, occupational and health outcomes.

Other information: This survey is carried out within the Austrian Mikrozensus, a quarterly multi-purpose surveywhich combines a core questionnaire containing basic data on population structure andemployment and unemployment with varying special programmes.

Bibliographicalreferences: Melitta Fasching, Arbeitsbedingungen-Hauptergebnisse - Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus Juni

1999’, in: Statistische Nachrichten, 11/2000, Herausgeber:StatistikÖsterreich, Wien 2000(Working Conditions - main results)

Website: http://www.wisdom.at/mz3.asp

Informationpublic/accessible: Raw data: A copy of anonymous individual data can be purchased at a price of approx.

€2,000. For details, ask the coordinators of the survey.

Questionnaires and instructions for the interviewer in http://www.wisdom.at/mz3.asp

Coordinatorsand contact: Reinhard Eichwalder, Statistic Austria, Mikrozensus,

E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +43/1/711 28/ 73 19

Melitta Fasching, Statistics Austria, Employment, E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +43/1/711 28/ 76 37



57


Country: Czech Republic

Survey Name (EN): Working Conditions in the Czech Republic in 2000

Survey Name (orig): Pracovní Podmínky v cr v Roce 2000

Institution: Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs


Editions: 2000

Next forecast ed.: Not forecast

Objectives: The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions carriesout a survey by means of a questionnaire. Comparable data will be available for the CzechRepublic as a result of this project.


Population: This survey covers the total active population, aged 15 years and over, of all the economicactivities.

Sample: Sampling strategy: The basic sample design is a multi-stage random sampling, called‘random walk’.

Sample size: 1,000



Other information: The methodology used in this survey is similar to that used in the European WorkingConditions Survey (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions).

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Exposure to physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents,

exposure to biological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain,work organisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equalopportunities, violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others:working time arrangements / outside work activities.

Bibliographical references: Zamykalova, L., Vytvárení odpovídajících podmínek pro uplatnování pružných forem

orgace práce a pracovní doby jako soucást politiky zamestnanosti, Príloha 3, VÚPSV, Praha2000

Information public/accessible: Raw data and questionnaires: by e-mail

Coordinators and contact: Ales Kroupa

Deputy DirectorResearch Institute for Labour and Social AffairsPalackeho namesti 4, Praha 2E-mail: [email protected]


58

Country: Denmark

Survey Name (EN): The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study 2000

Survey Name (orig): Den Nationale Arbejdsmiljøkohorte 2000 (NAK)

Acronym: DWECS

Institution: The National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark

Type of org.: Governmental Research Institution

Editions: Danish Employee Study (WEC): 1990 and 1995

Danish Work Environment Cohort Study (DWECS): 2000


Objectives: To describe working conditions, health and lifestyle in a cohort consisting of Danishworkers (1 to 400 workers).

DWECS makes it possible to:

1. Carry out cross-sectional analyses of the prevalence of work environmental exposuresand health effects among various groups;

2. Carry out follow-up studies of the association between work environmental exposuresand health and labour market effects.


Population: Active population (aged between 18-69 years) in all economic activities.

Classif. Economic Activities: Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE)

Methodology: DWECS was a split panel survey and comprised a follow-up study of a sample of employeesinterviewed in 1990 and again in 1995. Partially overlapping this panel was a panel ofemployees interviewed in 1995 and again in 2000. At the same time, the study comprisedthree cross-sectional surveys from 1990, 1995 and 2000, respectively, of comparablesamples of employees in Denmark. Thus, the study had a design that enabled bothsurveillance of the overall work environment and follow-up studies of occupationalexposures and subsequent health outcomes.

Sample: Sampling strategy: stratified simple random sampling design with proportional allocation.

Register used for the sample: Statistical sample of the Danish population drawn from theCentral Population Register

Sample size: The baseline in 1990 covered a random sample of 9,653 people 18-59 yearsold. The cohort was followed in 1995 and 2000 and the sample was in each roundsupplemented with 18-22 years old persons and immigrants, in total 2,622 persons. In thewhole period, 1,104 persons emigrated or died (provisional as interviews are ongoing). Thestudy now includes 11,942 persons.

Interviews: Type of interviews: by telephone




59


Other information: The Danish Work Environment Cohort Study (DWECS) is an extension of the DanishEmployee Study (WEC) which was conducted in 1990 and 1995. The change of name is dueto the fact that the 2000 study will cover the total labour market, not only the wage earners.

Project start: 1 January 1999. Project finish: 31 December 2002


exposure to biological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain,work organisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equalopportunities, violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others:lifestyle.

The study includes questions regarding physical, chemical, thermal, ergonomic andpsychosocial exposures, labour market status, together with health and symptoms. The latterincludes both health diagnosed by a doctor and self-rated health. In 2000, all participantswere to be asked about health.

Bibliographical references: Borg V., Kristensen T.S. Changing patterns in work environment and social class in

Denmark: results from the Danish Work Environment Cohort Study. Reducing SocialInequalities in Health. International Conference, 27-29 September 2000, Copenhagen, 2000.p. 12.

Borg, V, Kristenson, TS, Burr H. Work environment and changes in self-rated health: A fiveyear follow-up study. Stress Med 2000; 16:37-47.

Burr H, Bach E, Borg V, et al. The Danish work environment cohort study (DWECS). Asplit-panel survey based on interviews. In: Netterstrøm B. EPICOH 2001. FifteenthSymposium on Epidemiology in Occupational Health. Work and health: the role ofepidemiology; 2001 Aug 20-22; Copenhagen, Denmark. Int J Occup Environ Health 2001.7 (3 Suppl). p. p. S33-S34.

Website: http://www.ami.dk/english/projekter/66.html

Information public/accessible: Raw data (The National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark)

Questionnaires (The National Institute of Occupational Health, Denmark)

Coordinatorsand contact: Researcher Hermann Burr

Department of Epidemiology and Surveillance National Institute of Occupational Health DenmarkE-mail: [email protected]


60

Country: Estonia

Survey Name (EN): Working Environment Survey

Survey Name (orig): Töökeskkonna Uuring

Institution: Ministry of Social Affairs


Editions: 2000

Objectives: To find out company representatives’ assessments of their company’s working environment,and also to get an overview of employees’ assessments. Due to that, the survey consists oftwo independent aspects:

1. companies/institutions’ survey, in which employers’ assessments of the working environment were observed;

2. employees’ survey, in which employees evaluated different parameters of their workingenvironment.

The objective of the employers’ survey is to find out employers’ assessment of:

- compliance of the working environment with the provisions of the Occupational Healthand Safety Act (EU standards);

- various risk factors in the field of occupational health and safety; - costs incurred in minimising risk factors / future costs; - level of measures that have been adopted / will be adopted; - involvement of occupational health services, etc. in analysing working conditions; - incidence of sickness of workers related to the nature of work and work-related health risks;- past / current activities with regard to medical examinations for workers; - need of investment in improving working conditions; - need for dialogue with workers in the area of occupational health.

The objective of the employees’ survey is to find out workers’ assessment of:

- various issues related to occupational health and safety; - awareness and sufficiency of occupational health and safety measures adopted; - health condition, relation of their health to the nature of work and working conditions,

work-related sickness, health risks; - level of consideration given by employers to workers’ opinions and recommendations; - experience and willingness to undergo medical examination and its need; - occupational health and safety policy.




61


Population: The survey of employers was set by the united database of the Estonian Register ofCompanies (Eesti Ettevõtteregister) and Business Register (Äriregister).

The survey of employees is formed by the permanent resident workers of the Republic ofEstonia aged 15-74.

Population size: 28,829 operating companies and institutions (survey of employers),1,102,842 persons (survey of employees)

Register used for the sample: The employers were to be selected from a sample base drawnfrom the joint register of the Estonian Register of Companies (Eesti Ettevõtteregister) andBusiness Register (Äriregister).

Sample: Sample of Companies/Institution’s survey:

The distribution of companies was planned proportionally on the breakdown of areas(Tallinn, and other parts of Estonia) and activity sectors (primary sector, secondary sectorand tertiary sector). On the breakdown of employees the non-proportional extract was used,the purpose being to include analysis from larger companies also.

To receive a general picture, weighting was used for different distributions based on thenumber of employees in the sample.

Sample of Employees’ survey:

The employees’ survey was conducted on the frame of an omnibus-type survey. The targetgroup of this survey is persons of 15-74 years. The purpose of the employees’ survey wasto interview only working inhabitants. Therefore, only those respondents aged 15-74 inrandomly selected families, who worked, answered the questions about the workingenvironment.

The sample is formed as self-weighting, i.e. the proportional model of the population, whereall the respondents represent the equal number of people in the population, is used. To checkthe formed sample, its socio-demographic structure, by gender, age, nationality and location,is compared to the corresponding statistical data of the population. If necessary, the data areweighted to ensure a true representation of the sample.

Sample size: In total 402 companies/institutions’ representatives were interviewed indifferent areas of Estonia (survey of employers) and 797 employees (survey of employees).

Interviews: Type of interviews:

Companies/Institutions’ survey: The fieldwork was carried out by using computeradministrated telephone interviewing software Ci3 WinCATI, which follows the usage ofsample and direction of interviews. The respondent was the person responsible ofoccupational health or occupational safety in the company, either the working environmentspecialist or chief general manager.

Employees’ survey: The interviews were conducted by using computer assisted personalinterview (CAPI) method.

Location of interviews: workplace (survey of employers); interview at home (survey ofemployees)

Other information: Employers’ survey was conducted between 28 February and 7 March 2000. Employees’survey was conducted on the frame of an omnibus-type survey in three periods: 9-16February, 23 February to 1 March and 8-15 March 2000.


62

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Occupational safety and health (OSH) management, design of work stations, exposure to

physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, socialenvironment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities, violence at work, etc.),occupational and health outcomes.

Bibliographical references: Working Environment Survey. 2000, March

Report - http://www.sm.ee/Telematic/emor_report.htmGraphs - http://www.sm.ee/Telematic/emor_table.htm

Website: http://www.sm.ee/Telematic/emor_survey.htm

Information public/accessible: Questionnaires in http://www.sm.ee/Telematic/emor_survey.htm

Coordinators and contact: Ester Rünkla

Ministry of Social Affairs / Labour DepartmentGonsiori 29, EST-15027 TallinnTel: +372 6269783E-mail: [email protected]



63


Country: Finland

Survey Name (EN): Work and Health - Survey

Survey Name (orig): Työ ja Terveys - Haastattelututkimus

Institution: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health


Editions: 1994-5, 1997, 2000


Objectives: To collect follow up information on:

- working conditions and other work related factors

- health, well-being and work ability of working population

- health related lifestyle factors

- use of health care services

- functioning of occupational health services


Population: Finnish speaking people between age 25-65 years (population of working age).Population size: 2,800,861

Sample: Sampling strategy: Simple random sampleRegister used for the sample: Finnish population censusSample size: 5,000



Other information: Response rate 56% in 2000


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities,violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes.

Bibliographical references: Reports and publications:

Rantanen J, Kauppinen T, Toikkainen J, Kurppa K, Lehtinen S, Leino T. Work and healthcountry profiles. Country profiles and national surveillance indicators in occupational healthand safety. People and Work, Research Reports 44. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health,Helsinki 2001.

Lindström K. & Hottinen V. VDT use and its relation to job stress in various sectors ofindustry in Finland: Qualitative differences. In: Human-Computer Interaction: Ergonomicsand User Interfaces. Vol. 1. (ed) H-J. Bullinger & J. Ziegler. Proceedings of HCIInternational 1999 - 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 22-26August 1999, Munich, Germany. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London 1999, pp. 187-192.


64

Kauppinen K. Gender and working conditions in the European Union. In: Women’sconditions in working life. (ed.) C. Bildt and L. Karlqvist. Arbete och Hälsa nr 2001:17.betslivsinstitutet, National Institute for Working Life, Stockholm 2001, 57-65.

Kauppinen T, Heikkilä P, Lehtinen S, Lindström K, Näyhä S, Seppälä A, Toikkanen J,Tossavainen A. Työ ja terveys Suomessa v. 2000. (Work and health in Finland 2000).Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki 2000. (In Finnish).

Piirainen H, Elo A-L, Hirvonen M, Kauppinen K, Ketola R, Laitinen H, Lindström K,Reijula K, Riala R, Viluksela M, Virtanen S. Työ ja terveys - haastattelututkimus v. 2000.Taulukkoraportti. (Work and health - Survey 2000. Table report.) Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health, Helsinki 2000. (In Finnish)

Website: http://www.occuphealth.fi/e

Information public/accessible: Raw data - available in FIOH intranet (http://www.occuphealth.fi/e/)

Questionnaires - available in FIOH intranet (http://www.occuphealth.fi/e/)

Coordinators and contact: Helena Piirainen

Finnish Institute of Occupational HealthE-mail: [email protected]



65


Country: France

Survey Name (EN): Working Conditions (1998)

Survey Name (orig): Conditions de Travail (1998)

Acronym: CT

Institution: Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Études et des Statistiques (DARES) -Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité


Editions: 1978, 1984, 1991, 1998


Objectives: To study working conditions and organisation and their evolution during the last two decades.


Population: Active population of all the economic activities

Sample: Sampling strategy: area random samplingRegister used for the sample: Main sample of the INSEESample size: around 20,000 persons

Interviews: Type of interviews: Interviews are carried out on a face-to-face basis with the help ofportable computers (CAPI).


Other information: This survey is a complement of the INSEE Employment survey. This survey covers onlymetropolitan France. Only private households are included. The survey also covers part ofthe population living in collective households and some persons who are counted separately,insofar as they have family ties with ordinary households. The resident populationcomprises persons living on French territory.

The complementary surveys questionnaire is applied to each active working individual inthe household. The worker has to answer personally.

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Design of work stations, exposure to physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.),

physical workload, mental strain, work organisation issues.

Bibliographical references: Les enquêtes Conditions de Travail, précisions méthodologiques. Document facilitated by

Departement des Conditions de Travail et des Relations Professionnelles (DARES).

2002.05-N°20.1 - Accidents, accidentés et organisation du travail. (Résultats de l’enquêtesur les conditions de travail de 1998) at:http://www.travail.gouv.fr/publications/picts/titres/titre1674/integral/2002.05-20.1.pdf

Website: http://www.travail.gouv.fr/etudes/etudes_i.html

Coordinatorsand contact: Direction de l’Animation de la Recherche, des Études et des Statistiques (DARES).

Département des Conditions de Travail et des Relations Professionnelles (Études etStatistiques)

Pièce 3319, 20 bis rue d’Estrées, 75700 Paris SP 07 France


66

Country: Germany

Survey Name (EN): Germany BIBB/IAB-Survey (1998/1999)

Survey Name (orig): Erwerb und Verwertung Beruflicher Qualifikationen (BIBB/IAB-ERHEBUNG)(1998/1999)

Acronym: BIBB-IAB

Institution: Federal Institute for Vocational Training Affairs (BIBB)/Institute for Employment Research(IAB). Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BauA) also took part in the lastsurvey (1998/1999).


Editions: 1979 - 1985/86 - 1991/92 - 1998/99

Next forecast ed.: 2004/2005

Objectives: To assess the working population and their actual working conditions.


Population: People with more than nine working-hours/week; they must be able to answer the Germanquestionnaire (no translation into foreign languages); not included: apprentices (dualsystem).

Population size: 34 million

Sample: Sampling strategy: random route procedure on household basis.

Register used for the sample: ADM-Mastersample of precincts (Microcensus for controllingand weighting).

Sample size: 34,343 employees. As in the three previous BIBB/IAB surveys, this samplerepresents 0.1% of the employed persons in Germany.

The sample size serves the purpose of enabling a more detailed classification of theevaluation down to the level of occupations.

Interviews: Type of interviews: face to face. For the first time, interviewer with laptop computer (CAPI-method).


Other information: Each one of the four surveys treats a specific topic. 1985/86 treated the effects ofcomputerisation and 1991/92 compared the working conditions between East Germany andWest Germany after the reunification.

All four survey programmes included questions related to occupational risk andoccupational demands.


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities,violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others: tools andmachinery used.



67


Bibliographicalreferences: The main results of the BIBB/IAB 1998/1999 survey have been published in:

- Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung (BeitrAB 231). Nürnberg, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 2000

- Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F. Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit:Qualifikationsverwertung in sich verändernden Arbeitsstrukturen (BeitrAB 246). Nürnberg, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 2001

- Biersack, W., Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Troll, L. Arbeitssituation, Tätigkeitsprofilund Qualifikationsstruktur von Personengruppen des Arbeitmarktes - Ergebnisse der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/99 im Überblick (BeitrAB 248). Nürnberg, 2001

- Rolf Jansen (Hrsg.) Die Arbeitswelt im Wandel - Weitere Ergebnisse aus der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/99 zur Qualifikation und Erwerbssituation in Deutschland (Berichte zur beruflichen Bildung 254), Bielefeld 2002.

Further results in different magazine essays (http://www.bibb.de/forum/fram_fo1.htm):

- Alex, L.: ‘Qualifikationsentwicklung im Strukturwandel’; BIBB (Hrsg.): ‘30 Jahre Berufsbil-dungs-und Arbeitsförderungsgesetzgebung - 30 Jahre Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung: Do-kumentation der Fachtagung vom 24./25.5.2000’, Bonn, Bielefeld 2000.

- Alex, L.: ‘Qualifikationen und Erwerbstätigkeit 1979 - 1999’; in: BMBF (Hrsg.): ‘Qualifika-tionsstrukturbericht 2000’; Bonn 2000.

- Biersack, W., Parmentier, K., (2001): ‘Berufsforschung - Was passiert nach der Berufsausbil-dung?’. In: MatAB 1/2001 S.7-13

- Dostal, W., Die Informatisierung der Arbeitswelt - Ein erster Blick auf die Ergebnisse derBIBB/IAB-Erhebung - in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandelder Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Dostal, W., (2000): ‘Beziehungskiste - Computer prägen die Erwerbsarbeit’. In MatAB 1/2000, S.10.

- Dostal, W., (2000): ‘Lernort Arbeitsplatz - Übung macht den Meister ‘. In: MatAB 2/2000 S.9.

- Dostal, W., Veränderungen im Betrieb und ihre Auswirkungen auf die persönliche Arbeitssi-tuation, in: Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F., (2001): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Qualifikationsverwertung in sich verändernden Arbeitsstrukturen’. BeitrAB 246.

- Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Hecker, U., Berufliche Mobilität und Wechselprozesse, in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Hecker, U.: ‘Berufswechsel - Chancen und Risiken (Ergebnisse aus der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/99)’ in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP) Heft 4/2000, S. 12-17.


68

- Hecker, U., Jansen, R.: ‘Arbeitsbedingungen, Arbeitsbelastungen und berufliche Mobilität in Deutschland’; in: Heinz-Herbert Noll, Roland Habich (Hg.): Vom Zusammenwachsen einer Gesellschaft - Analysen zur Angleichung der Lebensverhältnisse in Deutschland, Frank-furt/m., New York 2000 (S. 151-172).

- Jansen, R., Arbeitbedingungen, Arbeitsbelastungen und Veränderungen auf betrieblicherE-bene, in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Jansen, R.: ‘Ausbildung und Beschäftigung in Büroberufen und von Bank-, Versicherungs-kaufleuten’; in: Ingrid Stiller, Tade Tramm (Hrsg.): Die kaufmännische Berufsausbildung in der Diskussion - Handlungsfelder, Lernfelder und Prüfungen in Theorie und Praxis; Berufs-bildung zwischen innovativer Programmatik und offener Umsetzung; Bd. 10 (Dokumentation der Beiträge zu den 11. Hochschultagen Berufliche Bildung 2000 in Hamburg); Bielefeld 2000. (S. 106 - 116)

- Jansen, R.: ‘Arbeitsbelastungen und Arbeitsbedingungen’, in: Badura, B., Litsch, M., Vetter, C. (Hrsg.): ‘ Fehlzeitenreport 1999: Psychische Belastung am Arbeitsplatz - Zahlen, Daten, Fakten aus allen Branchen der Wirtschaft’, Berlin, Heidelberg 2000.

- Jansen, R.: ‘Auswirkungen des Strukturwandels auf die Arbeitsplätze - Ergebnisse aus derBIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/99 zu Erwerb und Verwertung beruflicher Qualifikation’; in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP) Heft 2/2000, S. 5 - 10.

- Jansen, R., Müller, R.: Arbeitsbelastungen und Gesundheit älterer Arbeitnehmer im Dienst-leistungsbereich, in: Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, Band 33, 4/2000, S. 256-261.

- MatAB-Redaktion (2000): ‘Arbeitswelt im Umbruch - Das einzig Beständige ist nur derWandel’. In: MatAB 4/2000 S.1-2. (aus BeitrAB 231: Parmentier, K., Erwerbsarbeit im Spie-gel der BIBB/IAB-Erhebungen 1999/1992)

- Parmentier, K., (2000): ‘ Berufliche Zufriedenheit - Im Zeitablauf stabil’. In: MatAB 1/2000 S.13.

- Parmentier, K., Erwerbsarbeit im Spiegel der BIBB/IAB-Erhebungen 1999/1992, in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Parmentier, K., Fachkräfte in anerkannten Ausbildungsberufen - Verbleib nach der Ausbil-dung, Tätigkeitsschwerpunkte, Kenntnisse und Anforderungen am Arbeitsplatz, in: Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F., (2001): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Qualifikationsverwertung in sich verändernden Arbeitsstrukturen’. BeitrAB 246.

- Plicht, H., Meister und Techniker in einer sich wandelnden Arbeitswelt, in: Dostal, W., Par-mentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F., (2001): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Qualifi-kationsverwertung in sich verändernden Arbeitsstrukturen’. BeitrAB 246.

- Rauch, A., Nicht-formal-Qualifizierte - Ein Überblick über Strukturmerkmale, Arbeitslosig-keit und Erwerbssituation, in: Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F., (2001): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Qualifikations-verwertung in sich verändernden Arbeits-strukturen’. BeitrAB 246.



69


- Schreyer, F., (2000): ‘BIBB/IAB-Erhebung - ‘Unsichere’ Beschäftigung trifft vor allem die Niedrigqualifizierten’. IABkurzbericht Nr. 15/31.10.2000.

- Schreyer, F., (2000): ‘Unsichere’ Beschäftigung - Nicht nur ein Problem der Niedrigqualifi-zierten’. In: MatAB 3/2000 S.1-2.

- Schreyer, F., ‘Unsichere’ Beschäftigung und berufliche Qualifikation - Ein Blick auf Er-werbsarbeit jenseits des Normalarbeitsverhältnisses, in: Dostal, W., Parmentier, K., Plicht, H., Rauch, A., Schreyer, F., (2001): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Qualifikationsverwertung in sich verändernden Arbeitsstrukturen’. BeitrAB 246.

- Troll, L., Die Arbeitsmittellandschaft in Deutschland im Jahre 1999, in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssituation, Informatisie-rung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Troll, L., (2000): ‘Neue Technik und Beruf - Die ‘dritte technische Revolution’ hat schonstattgefunden’. In: MatAB 1/2000 S.12

- Troll, L., (2000): ‘Arbeitsmittel in Deutschland (Teil 1) - Moderne Technik bringt neue Viel-falt in die Arbeitswelt’. IABkurzbericht Nr. 6/16.5.2000.

- Troll, L., (2000): ‘Arbeitsmittel in Deutschland (Teil 2) - Moderne Technik kommt heuteü-berall gut an ‘. IABkurzbericht Nr. 7/17.5.2000.

- Troll, L., (2000): ‘Beschäftigung im Strukturwandel - Sättigungstendenzen in einer veränder-ten Bürolandschaft’. IABkurzbericht Nr. 17/28.12.2000.

- Ulrich, J.-G., ‘Sind wir ausreichend für unsere Arbeit gerüstet? - Besondere Kenntnisanforde-rungen am Arbeitsplatz und Weiterbildungsbedarf der Erwerbstätigen in Deutschland’; in: Dostal, W., Jansen, R., Parmentier, K., (Hrsg.) (2000): ‘Wandel der Erwerbsarbeit: Arbeitssi-tuation, Informatisierung, berufliche Mobilität und Weiterbildung’. BeitrAB 231.

- Ulrich, J. G.: ‘Weiterbildungsbedarf und Weiterbildungsaktivitäten der Erwerbstätigen inDeutschland - Ergebnisse aus der BIBB/IAB-Erhebung 1998/1999’; in: Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis (BWP) Heft 3/2000, S. 23-29

Website: http://www.bibb.de/forum/projekte/bibb_iab/start.htm

Information public/accessible: Raw data: Central Archive for Empirical Social Research, University Cologne

(http://www.gesis.org/ZA/)

The questionnaires of the survey 1998/1999, information about the weighting procedure aswell as an overview of the samples of the four surveys is available on the website:http://www.bibb.de/forum/projekte/bibb_iab/start.htm

Coordinators and contact: Rolf Jansen (e-mail: [email protected]; tel: +49 228 107 1123)

Anja Hall (e-mail: [email protected]; tel: +49 228 107 1103)Bundesinstitut für BerufsbildungD 53043 Bonn

Dr. Werner Dostal (e-mail: [email protected]; tel: +49 911 179 3004)Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung der BARegensburger Str. 104D 90478 Nürnberg


70

Country: Italy

Survey Name (EN): Features and Quality of Work in Italy

Survey Name (orig): Le Caratteristiche e la Qualità del Lavoro in Italia

Institution: ISFOL - Istituto per lo sviluppo della formazione professionale dei lavoratori


Editions: December 2002

Objectives: To define features of work and working conditions in Italy through a field survey


Population: Italian employed

Population size: 21,000,000

Sample: Sampling strategy: to be defined

Register used for the sample: ISTAT data-bases

Sample size: approximately 2,000



Other information: Special attention will be paid to ‘atypical’ workers

Coordinatorsand contact: Marinella Giovine - coordinator

Maurizio Curtarelli - researcherLaura Incagli - researcherClaudia Tagliavia - researchervia Morgagni 33 - I-00161 - Romephone: 0039.06.44590-246/649E-mail: [email protected]



71


Country: Netherlands

Survey Name (EN): TNO Working Situation Survey

Survey Name (orig): TNO Arbeidssituatie Survey (TAS)

Acronym: TAS

Institution: TNO Work & Employment


Editions: 2000


Objectives: To describe the work situation of Dutch workers.


Population: Active population, 15-65 years of age, of all the economic activities except: forestry,logging and related service activities; fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms;service activities incidental to fishing; mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat;extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas; service activities incidental to oil and gasextraction, excluding surveying; mining of uranium and thorium ores; mining of metal ores;and other mining and quarrying (NACE codes: 02, 05, 10-14).

Population size: 7,000,000 working people

Sample: Sampling strategy: Stratified (by the 12 provincial regions) random sampling.

Register used for the sample: a select sample from workers databases (from an inquirybureau/agency)

Sample size: at least 4,000 (in 2000: 4,334)

Interviews: Type of interviews: by mail

Location of interviews: workplace, mailing at the home address of workers


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities,violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others: content withHRM; work and care (children/sick), commitment to the organisation; job security;contracts; ICT.

Bibliographical references: Smulders, Andries & Otten. Hoe denken Nederlandsers over hun werk (What do Dutch

workers think about their work). Hoofddorp: TNO Arbeid

Information public/accessible: Raw data: after two years it can be bought from TNO

Questionnaires: as an appendix in the book

Coordinators and contact: TNO Work & Employment

PO Box 718; Polaris Avenue 151; 2130 AS Hoofddorp, NLE-mail: [email protected]


72

Country: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (NORBALT)

Survey Name (EN): Living Conditions Survey

Acronym: NORBALT (Northern Baltic Countries)

Institution: Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science (Norway)Central Statistical Bureau (Latvia)Ministry of Social Affairs (Estonia), University of Tartu (Estonia)Ministry of Labour and Social Security (Lithuania)NORBALT is implemented by Fafo’s Centre for International Studies in cooperation withlocal project teams consisting of representatives from the local statistical bureaux andministries of social affairs in the three Baltic countries.


Editions: 1994 (NORBALT I), 1999 (NORBALT II)

These surveys were conducted concurrently in the three Baltic countries during the autumnof 1994 and of 1999.


Objectives: The NORBALT surveys give updated and policy-relevant information on living conditionsin the three countries, with special focus on poverty and economic resources, housing andresidential environment, education, the labour market (unemployment, working conditions),social integration, health (contact with health institutions, coverage of medical insurance,private caretakers etc.), crime and security. The existence of comparable questions fromboth the 1994 and the 1999 surveys in all three countries (in Lithuania since 1990-91)facilitates comparative analyses both across time and across countries. Moreover, as thesurveys are made much on the same model as the Scandinavian living conditions surveys,comparative analyses may also include Scandinavian countries.

Territorial scope: International

Population: The population of the study is all households residing in the country.

Register used for the sample: Public population register

Sample: Sample size: More than 10,000 households across the Baltic countries were interviewed forNORBALT II, gathering information about approximately 25,000 individuals. The samplingsize varies somewhat between the three countries, largely due to variation in local fundingof the project.

Sampling strategy: The samples were largely two stage stratified cluster samples.

The main design characteristics for the Latvian NORBALT II sample are:

- The population of the study is all households residing in Latvia (2.4 million inhabitants)

- The budget allowed for a sample of 3,500 households.

- The questionnaire calls for one respondent to answer for the household, and one randomly selected person (RSI) aged 18 years or older. This may, or may not, be the sameperson.



73


- The survey gives three analytical units of analysis - the household, the individuals in thehousehold (all ages) and one randomly selected individual of the household (RSI), 18 years or older.

- The sample was generally drawn as a two stage stratified cluster sample. The populationwas divided into 83 strata, from which 135 clusters (pagasts - pagast is the lowest administrative unit in rural areas, towns or city districts of Latvia) were drawn.

- Only one person of the household (the RSI) was asked questions on attitudes, migration,social contacts, crime and working conditions.

The main design characteristics for the Estonian NORBALT II sample are:

- The population of the study is all households resident in Estonia.

- The budget allowed for a sample of 5,500 households.

- The population was divided into 35 strata, from which 90 clusters (municipalities) weredrawn. In the six largest cities (strata with only one municipality), the sample was drawn as a single stage stratified cluster sample. In all other areas a two stage stratified cluster sample was drawn.

- The enumeration units of the sample are all residents of Estonia. The questionnaire callsfor one respondent to answer for the household, and one randomly selected person (RSI) aged 18 years or more. The sample thus gives three types of analytical units - the household, the individuals in the household (all ages) and one randomly selected individual of the household (RSI), 18 years or older.

- Only one person of the household (the RSI) was asked questions on attitudes, migration,social contacts, crimes and working conditions. If the person whose address had been selected in the sample was 18 years or older, this person would answer the RSI part. Thus,in most cases the RSI was drawn directly from the registers, and becomes the primary sampling unit in strata with only one municipality, and secondary sampling units in all other strata.

The main design characteristics for the Lithuanian NORBALT II sample are:

- The population of the study is all private households resident in Lithuania.

- In urban areas (seven cities and towns with population above 50,000), the sample was drawn as a single stage stratified sample. In smaller towns and rural areas, the sample wasdrawn as a two stage stratified cluster sample. The population was divided into three strata, from which a total of 84 clusters (towns and seniunijas) were drawn.

- The sample frame was the Lithuanian Population Register, which is prepared and updatedby Statistics Lithuania and the Ministry of Internal affairs. The lists include residents withpassports, i.e. citizens of Lithuania and residents having permission to live in Lithuania.

- The enumeration units of the sample are Lithuanian citizens aged 18 and over. The questionnaire calls for one respondent to answer for the household, and one randomly selected person (RSI) aged 18 or more. The sample thus gives three types of analytical units - the household, the individuals in the household (all ages) and one randomly selected individual of the household (RSI), 18 years or above.


74

- A sample of 3,500 addresses was drawn from the population register. Due to budgetary restraints, only 359 of the sampled addresses were contacted. The left out addresses are rather evenly distributed across the country, though there is a slight imbalance in areas with high non-response and large frame imperfections. Of the 359 contacted households, 2,769 interviews (88%) were conducted.



Other information: The Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science is an independent non-profit institute based inOslo, Norway, established in 1982. Fafo’s mission is to produce research of strategicsignificance for policy planning and for empowering actors in the development process. Theinstitute has carried out projects in cooperation with local partners in Norway and Europe,in the Middle East, the Far East, in Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries, in South andNorth Africa, and in Latin America, focusing on various dimensions of living conditions andworking life.


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, occupational and health outcomes. Among others: establishment ofemployment relationship, regularity of wage payments, threat of unemployment, status ofwork relationships, work environment, work relationships, social dialogue, unemploymentand the characterisation of unemployed people, education, crime and social contacts.

Bibliographical references: Publications from the 1994 surveys:

- Knudsen, Knud (1996), Lithuania in a period of transition, 152 p. (Fafo report 186)

- Aasland, Aadne ed. (1996), Latvia: the impact of the transformation, 240 p. (Fafo report 188)

- Grøgaard, Jens ed. (1996), Estonia in the grip of change, 296 p., Oslo: Fafo

- Aasland, Aadne, K. Knudsen, D. Kutsar and I. Trapenciere eds. (1997), The Baltic countries revisited: living conditions and comparative challenges, 180 p., Oslo: Fafo

- Aasland, Aadne and V. Cesnuityte (1997), Living conditions in the Baltic countries compared, 105 p., Oslo: Fafo

- Jan Dietz, Børge Klemmensen, Poul Kragh and Aadne Aasland (eds.) (1996), Baltic-Nordic rendezvous. The politics of environmental cooperation. Common security forum studies. 164 p. (Fafo report 204)

Publications from the 1999 surveys:

- Baseline reports from each country (in English and the local languages), national analytical reports (in English and the local languages), and comparative report (in Englishand the local languages) in: http://www.fafo.no/norbalt/

Publications from the 1994 and 1999 surveys:

- Aadne Aasland and Guri Tyldum (2000), Better or worse?. Living conditions developments in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 1994-1999. 32 p. (Fafo report 344)



75


Related reports:

- Erik Hansen and Arnfinn Tønnessen (1998), Environment and living conditions on theKola Peninsula. 268 p. (Fafo report 260)

- Erik Hansen (1993), Living conditions on the Kola Peninsula. 104 p. (Fafo report 155)

- Gudmund Hernes and Knud Knudsen (1991), Lithuania. Level of living conditions survey. (Fafo report 129)

Website: http://www.fafo.no/norbalt/

Information public/accessible: Raw data: upon request to the CSB or FAFO

Questionnaires: http://www.fafo.no/norbalt/

Coordinators and contact: Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science (FAFO)

Tel.: (+47) 22 08 86 00Fax : (+47) 22 08 87 00Website: http://www.fafo.no/engelsk

Latvia:

Edmunds VaskisCentral Statistical Bureau of LatviaTel: 371 7 333 387Fax: 371 7 830 137E-mail: [email protected]

Estonia:

Ülle MarksooDirector of the projectMinistry of Social AffairsGonsiori 29. 15027 Tallinn Tel: 372 2 626 773 Fax: 372 6 269 778E-mail: [email protected]

Dagmar Kutsar Scientific adviser of the surveyUniversity of Tartu Ülikooli 18 - 50090 Tartu Tel: 372 7 465 929Fax: 372 7 465 956 E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ut.ee/

Lithuania:

Dr. Vytautas ZiukasProject ManagerMinistry of Labour and Social SecurityTel: 370 2 652 621Fax: 370 2 652 403E-mail: [email protected]


76

Country: Portugal

Survey Name (EN): Survey on Workers’ Working Conditions

Survey Name (orig): Inquérito de Avaliação das Condições de Trabalho dos Trabalhadores

Institution: Departamento de Estatística do Trabalho, Emprego e Formação Profissional (DETEFP) doMinistério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade (MTS)


Editions: Dec 99 - Jan 00


Objectives: - To characterise labour conditions which may be hazardous to the health and safety of theworker;

- To identify activity sectors, professional occupations and other target groups most vulnerable to occupational risks;

- To improve knowledge of services and equipment for the protection and prevention against occupational risks available at the workplace.

Territorial scope: National (except the autonomous region of Azores)

Population: Workers of all economic activities except sections L, P and Q of NACE: publicadministration and defence; compulsory social security; other services.


Classif. Economic Activities: Portugal’s national activities classification was used (CAE-REV2, 1994).

Sample: Sampling strategy: The sample was selected in two steps: 1. sample of establishments -stratified random sampling was used. 2. sample of workers - workers were selectedaccording to the size (no. of workers) of the establishments selected.

Register used for the sample: Department’s file of establishments covered in an annualstatistical operation called ‘Quadros de Pessoal’ of 1997, referring to the population ofestablishments at national level.

Sample size: 5,000 workers


Location of interviews: workplace

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Occupational safety and health (OSH) management, exposure to physical agents (noise,

radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure to biological agents, safetyat the workplace, occupational and health outcomes. Among others: ergonomic conditions,working time, commuting time, social conditions (distance between home and workplace,means of transportation used, holidays given, subsidies earned...), accidents at work andoccupational diseases.



77


Other information: Between the years 1992 and 1993, during the European year of health, hygiene and safetywork, the DETEFP carried out a working condition survey, from the point of view of thecompany, focused on questions related to occupational risks and preventive structurescurrently in companies.

The increasing need for information concerning working conditions justified the inclusionof complementary data related to the working environment that were not included before,such as: ergonomic conditions, more detailed information about the working station, degreeof autonomy, absenteeism levels and opportunities for mobility, among other items gatheredin this occasion by means of face-to-face interviews.

Bibliographical references: Condições de Trabalho em Portugal - Continente, 2000

May be requested at website: http://www.detefp.pt (contactos).

Website: http://www.detefp.pt/informacao/sinteses/ct.php

Information public/accessible: Questionnaires: Included as annex to publication and in:

http://www.detefp.pt/informacao/sinteses/ct.php

Questionnaires and other: reply via e-mail on request

Coordinators and contact: Departamento de Estatística do Trabalho, Emprego e Formação Profissional (DETEFP)

Tel: 21 382 23 34/5E-mail: [email protected]


78

Country: Spain

Survey Name (EN): National Working Conditions Survey

Survey Name (orig): Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo

Acronym: ENCT

Institution: The Spanish National Institute for Health and Safety (INSHT)


Editions: 1987, 1993, 1997, 1999


Objectives: - To gain knowledge of those work environment factors that are generating illness or discomfort in the Spanish working population;

- To identify the Spanish worker population’s typical working conditions;

- To understand the current preventive structures;

- To assess preventive activities based upon research, intervention actions or training acts;

- To gain knowledge of the evolution of the Spanish working population labour conditions.


Population: Employers: all companies operating in Spain with more than one worker in all economicactivities, except farming and mining sectors.

Employees: all employees working in the selected workplaces.

Classif. Economic Activities: NACE 1993

Classif. Occupations: National Classification of Occupations (CNO)

Population size: 696,183 companies and 9,166,410 workers

Sample: Sampling strategy: Stratification of the companies according to the main type of economicactivity (grouped in nine branches) and the size of total in-house staff. The selection of thesites was random in each of the formed groups.

The company questionnaire was answered by the manager or a company designated personin each of the selected sites.

The selection of the workers was at random among the employees considering all presentworkers in the working centre at that time, including in-house workers and those belongingto other companies such as subcontracts and temporary employment agencies (ETT). Theselected workers answered the worker questionnaire. Only one employee was interviewedin companies with less than 250 employees and two were interviewed in companies withmore than 250.

Register used for the sample: Census of companies from the social security

Sample size: 3,419 interviews to employers and 3,702 interviews to employees wereperformed.





79


Other information: Although from an analytical point of view two questionnaires are used (company andworker questionnaires), in the methodological approach, due to the peculiar characteristicsof the construction sector, five questionnaires were designed: three different companyquestionnaires (a standardised one for eight economic-activity branches and two speciallydesigned for the construction industry, for big and small companies, respectively). Twoother worker questionnaires were designed, one for construction and the other astandardised one for eight economic-activity branches. Nonetheless, the construction’squestionnaires are similar to the general one and both share the same structure, except forsome specific questions. This enables recording of all the company and worker surveys intwo data-matrix.


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities,violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes. Among others: employeesworking conditions, labour conditions (in terms of contractual relationships), technicalinnovation performed by the companies, (machinery and equipment) OSH activities(training, information about security and health, risks assessment and health examinations).

Bibliographicalreferences: Based on the I National Working Conditions Survey (1987):

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo1987, Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid 1988.

Based on the II National Working Conditions Survey (1993):

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo1993, Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid 1995.

- Monográfico en la revista del INSHT ‘Salud y Trabajo’ no. 107-108, 1995.

- Zimmermann, M. et al., ‘Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo: datos para la reflexión’, en Revista Española de Salud Pública, Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, 1996, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 421-429.

Based on the III National Working Conditions Survey (1997):

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, III Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo, Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid 1999.

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, ‘III Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. Avance de resultados’. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid, 1998.

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, ‘III Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. Resumen de resultados’. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo(INSHT), Madrid, 1998.

- Almodóvar, A. et al. ‘Análisis de las condiciones de trabajo: conocer para prevenir. III Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo’ en la revista del INSHT ‘Prevención. Trabajo y Salud’, no. 0, pp. 20-28 (Madrid 1999), y reproducido en la revista Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, no. 14, pp. 33-48 (Madrid 1999).


80

- Amuedo-Dorantes, C., Work safety in the midst of increased employment flexibility: theSpanish experience, San Diego State University, September 2000.

Based on the IV National Working Conditions Survey (1999):

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, IV Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo, Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid 2001.

- Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, ‘IV Encuesta Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo. Avance de resultados’. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT), Madrid, 2000.

- Pinilla, F.J., ‘Flexibilidad contractual y accidente de trabajo: un enfoque sociológico’ enRevista de Derecho Social. Separatas, nºo.11, pp. 223-231, 2000.

Website: http://infoinsht/sst/statistics/enct_3.htm; http://infoinsht/sst/statistics/enct_4.htm

Information public/accessible: Raw data: Dataset available in SPSS format upon request from interested researchers

Questionnaires: upon request

Coordinators and contact: Marta Zimmermann Verdejo and Antonia Almodóvar Molina

Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT)Servicio de Estudios e Investigación (Subdirección Técnica)C/ Torrelaguna, 7328027 Madrid - SPAINTel: + 34 913 634 100Fax: + 34 913 634 327E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]



81


Country: Sweden

Survey Name (EN): Working Environment Survey 2001

Survey Name (orig): ARBETSMILJÖN 2001

Institution: Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA)

Statistics Sweden (SCB) conducts this survey on behalf of the Swedish Work EnvironmentAuthority (SWEA), which is the authority responsible for work environment issues.


Editions: Since 1989 every second year. Editions: 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2001.


Objectives: Physical and psychosocial work environment conditions.


Population: Working population (employees, self-employed persons and family workers) of all theeconomic activities.

Classif. Economic Activities: NACE Rev.1

Classif. Occupations: ISCO 1-4 (number level )


Sample: Sampling strategy: stratified random sampling

Sample size: 12,000

The sample is sufficiently large to allow descriptions of different categories: occupation,economic activity, socio-economic category, gender, age, etc.

Interviews: Type of interviews: By telephone and postal questionnaire sent to the person interviewed.Therefore, the investigation is partly carried out by interviews, partly by postalquestionnaires.


Other information: The Work Environment Survey is carried out by means of supplementary questions asked inconnection with Statistics Sweden’s continuous Labour Force Surveys (LFS), which areconducted by means of telephone interviews. Those who have taken part in the interviewsurvey and answered the supplementary questions then receive additional questions in apostal questionnaire.

The data collected in LFS can be used as background information, e.g. to allow separatepresentation of data for different groups in working life.

The repetition of the survey every second year makes it possible both to monitordevelopments over time and to amalgamate the results of the surveys.


82


physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure tobiological agents, safety at the workplace, physical workload, mental strain, workorganisation issues, social environment (participation and consultation, equal opportunities,violence at work, etc.), occupational and health outcomes.

Bibliographical references: Statistics Sweden, The Work Environment 1999 - Series AM, 2000

In http://www.av.se/statistik/eng/showdoceng.asp

Website: http://www.av.se/statistik/officiell statistik

http://www.av.se/statistik/eng/default.asp

Information public/accessible: Questionnaires and Tables: available from SCB

Coordinatorsand contact: Madeleine Bastin

Tel: (+46) 8 50694654E-mail: [email protected]



83


Country: United Kingdom

Survey Name: Self-Reported Working Conditions in 1995

Acronym: SWC95

Institution: Health and Safety Executive (HSE)


Editions: 1995


Currently considering undertaking a further survey, may form part of a larger surveycovering other health and safety and related issues. To take place around 2004.

Objectives: To identify job characteristics that could be associated with the occurrence of work-relatedillness.


Population: Working population. Aged 16 years and overClassif. Economic Activities: Industry has been coded according to the 1992 StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC 92).Classif. Occupations: Occupations were coded using the Standard Occupation Classification(SOC). Population size: Approx. 25.5 million current workers

Omnibus SurveyMethodology: In 1995, the working conditions questions formed a module in the Office for National

Statistics’ (ONS) August and October Omnibus surveys. The Omnibus is a multi-purposesurvey developed by the ONS for use by government departments, and other public or non-profit making bodies. It is a vehicle for questions on topics too brief to warrant a survey oftheir own, and also for topics of immediate interest. Interviewing is carried out every month.Each month’s questionnaire covers a variety of topics, reflecting users’ requirements and acore of demographic questions.

Each month, interviews are conducted on approximately 2,000 adults aged 16 or over inprivate households in Great Britain. A random probability sample is selected for eachmonth’s survey. A new sample of 100 postal sector is selected for each month, withstratification by region, proportion of household renting from the local authorities andproportion in which the head of household is in socio-economic groups 1-5 or 13 (i.e. aprofessional, employer or management). The postal sectors are selected with probabilityproportionate to size and, within each sector, 30 addresses are selected randomly.

Sample: Sampling strategy: Stratified random sample

If an address contains more than one household, the interviewer uses a standard ONSprocedure to select just one household randomly. Within households with more than oneadult member, just one person aged 16 or over is selected, using random tables. Theinterviewer will only interview the selected person, no proxies are taken.

The specific questions relating to working conditions were administered to respondentsemployed in the 10-year period prior to the interview. The questions were linked to therespondent’s current job if they were in employment when interviewed and their last job ifnot.


84

Register used for the sample: Postcode Address File of ‘small users’ which includes privatehousehold addresses.

Sample size: 2,230 individuals (current workers)

Weighting: Because only one household member is interviewed, people in households containing fewadults have a better chance of selection than those in households with many. A weightingfactor is applied to correct for this unequal probability. Responses are first weighted by thenumber of adults in the household, to correct the proportions, and then adjusted to give atotal sample size equal to the number of respondents actually interviewed. This is theweighting applied to the majority of modules, which use the individual adult as the unitanalysis.


All interviews are carried out face-to-face by the interviewers trained to carry out ONSsurveys. The Omnibus Survey is administered to adults aged 16 or over (all the population).The working conditions questions were only administered to workers.


Other information: As part of a continuing programme to develop its information on work-related illness, theHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned a ‘trailer’ questionnaire to the 1990Labour Force Survey (LFS). The study asked adults in a representative sample ofhouseholds in England and Wales whether they felt they had suffered from any illness orcondition caused or made worse by their work. A detailed report of the results was publishedin 1993*.


physical workload, mental strain, social environment (participation and consultation, equalopportunities, violence at work, etc.).

Respondents were asked a selection of questions about different aspects of their job andworking conditions that could be associated with the occurrence of work-related illness.Each condition has been grouped into one of five categories: job demands, control andsupport; physical conditions; noise and vibration; ergonomic aspects and violence.

Bibliographical references: Jones, J. R., Hodgson, J. T., Osman, J., ‘Self-reported working conditions in 1995. Results

from a household survey’. Government Statistical Service. Health & Safety Executive(HSE). HSE Books, 1997.

* Hodgson J. T., Jones J. R., Elliot R. C., Osman J., Self-reported work-related illness. HSEResearch Paper 33, HSE Books, 1993. ISBN 0 71 76 0607 4.

Information public/accessible: Questionnaires: In published report

Coordinators and contact: Jacky Jones

Health and Safety Executive, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics UnitRoom 240 Magdalen House, Stanley Precinct, Bootle Merseyside, L20 3QZ, EnglandE-mail: [email protected]



85


Country: Canada

Survey Name: Workplace and Employee Survey

Acronym: WES

Institution: Statistics Canada with support of Human Resources Development Canada


Editions: WES was conducted for the first time during the summer (employer survey part) and fall of1999 (employee survey part).

Annual frequency.

Objectives: The Workplace and Employee Survey (WES) is designed to explore a broad range of issuesrelating to employers and their employees. The survey aims to shed light on the relationshipsamong competitiveness, innovation, technology use and human resource management onthe employer side; and technology use, training, job stability and earnings on the employeeside.

In this survey, employers and employees are linked at the micro data level; employees areselected from within sampled workplaces. Thus, information from both the supply anddemand sides of the labour market is available to enrich studies on either side of the market.


Population: The target population for the employer component is defined as all business locationsoperating in Canada that have paid employees, with the following exceptions: a) employersin Yukon and Northwest Territories, b) employers operating in crop production and animalproduction; fishing, hunting and trapping; private households and public administration.

The target population for the employee component is all employees working in the selectedworkplaces who receive a Customs Canada and Revenue Agency T-4 Supplementary form.If a person receives a T-4 slip from two different workplaces, then the person will be countedas two employees on the WES frame.

Classif. Economic Activities: 3-digit North American Industry Classification System(NAICS)

Sample: Sampling strategy: The survey frame is a list that carries contact and classification (e.g.,industrial classification) information on all the units. This list is used for sample design andselection; ultimately, it provides contact information for the selected units.

Workplace survey:

Prior to sample selection, the business locations on the frame were stratified into relativelyhomogeneous groups (strata), which were then used for sample allocation and selection. TheWES frame was stratified by industry, region and size, which was defined using estimatedemployment. The size stratum boundaries were typically different for each industry/regioncombination. The cut-off points defining a particular size stratum were computed using amodel-based approach. The sample was selected using Neyman allocation. This processgenerated 252 strata with 9,144 sampled business locations. All sampled units were assigneda sampling weight (a raising factor attached to each sampled unit to obtain estimates for thepopulation from a sample).


86

The inaugural WES survey collected data from 6,351 of the 9,144 sampled employers. Theremaining employers were a combination of workplaces that were decided to be either out-of-business, seasonally inactive, holding companies, or out-of-scope. The majority of non-respondents were owner-operators with no paid help and in possession of a payrolldeduction account.

Employee survey:

The frame for the employee component of WES was based on lists of employees madeavailable to interviewers by the selected workplaces. A maximum of 12 employees weresampled using a probability mechanism. In workplaces with fewer than four employees, allemployees were selected.

Register used for the sample: WES draws its sample from the Business Register (BR)maintained by the Business Register Division of Statistics Canada, and from lists ofemployees provided by the surveyed employers.

The Business Register is a list of all businesses in Canada, and is updated each month usingdata from various surveys, profiling businesses and administrative sources.

Sample size: Just over 6,350 workplaces and about 24,600 employees responded to thesurvey.

The employer sample is longitudinal - the sampled locations will be followed over time,with the periodic addition of samples of new locations to maintain a representative crosssection. Employees will be followed for two years only, due to the difficulty of integratingnew employers into the location sample as workers change companies. As such, freshsamples of employees will be drawn on every second survey occasion (i.e. first, third, fifth).This longitudinal aspect will allow researchers to study both employer and employeeoutcomes over time in the evolving workplace.

Interviews: Type of interviews: face to face (workplace survey), by phone (employee survey)

Location of interviews: workplace (workplace survey)

Other information: The reference period for WES is mainly the 12-month period ending March 1999. Somequestions in the workplace portion covered the last pay period ending before March 1999.

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: The survey consists of two components: (1) a workplace survey on the adoption of

technologies, organisational change, training and other human resource practices, businessstrategies, and labour turnover in workplaces; and (2) a survey of employees within thesesame workplaces covering wages, hours of work, job type, human capital, use oftechnologies and training.

Bibliographical references: Workplace and Employee Survey. Compendium. Statistics Canada, June 2001.

In http://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/71-585-XIE.htm

Website: http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/2615.htm

Information public/accessible : - Integrated metadata at http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/2615.htm

- Questionnaires at: http://www.statcan.ca/english/sdds/2615.htm



87


Country: Japan

Survey Name (EN): Industrial Safety Health

Institution: Statistics and Information Department, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare

Type of org.: Government

Objectives: To obtain basic data for measures.


Register used forthe sample: General Survey of Enterprises and Establishments



Specificinformation: This survey rotates its themes every five years:

- 1997 (previous survey 1992): Survey on the state of employees’ health (Roudosha KenkoJokyo Chosa).

Population: companies with more than 10 employees; private sector; all economic activities except (according to NACE code): agriculture, hunting and related service activities (01); fishing, operation of fish hatcheries and fish farms; service activities incidental to fishing (05); public administration and defence, compulsory social security (75); private households with employed persons (95); extra-territorial organisations and bodies (99).

Sampling strategy: stratified random twice sampling

Sample size: 12,000 companies, 16,000 workers

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: mental strain, medical examination services foremployees at the workplace, employee attendance of medical examinations at the workplace, employees’ health self-management.

Bibliographical references: Survey on State of Employee’s Health (1997) http://www.jil.go.jp/kisya/daijin/980623_03_d/980623_03_d.html


- 1998 (previous survey 1993): Survey on technological innovation and labour (Gijyutukakusin To Rodo Ni Kansuru Jittai Chosa).

Population: companies with more than 30 employees; private sector; all economic activities except (according to NACE code): agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing (setA-B); public administration and defence, compulsory social security (set L); education (80); health and social work (85); sewage and refuse disposal, sanitation and similar activities (90); activities of membership organisations NEC (91); recreational, cultural and sporting activities (92); other service activities (93).

Sampling strategy: stratified twice sampling



88

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: design of work stations, exposure to physical agents (noise, radiation, vibration, etc.), mental strain, introducing computers to the workplace and the effects, health management for workers engaging in computer related work.

Bibliographical references: Survey on Technological Innovation and Labour (1998) http://www.jil.go.jp/kisya/daijin/990726_02_d/990726_02_d.html


- 1999 (previous survey 1994): Survey on the prevention of industrial accidents in the construction industry (Kensetugyo Roudousaigaiboushi Taisaku Sougou Jittai Chosa).

Population: companies with more than five and less than 100 employees; private sector;economic activities: construction; companies that bear an estimate of more than one million yen per year for National Work Injury Insurance premiums


Sample size: 8,500 companies, 3,500 construction sites, 17,700 workers

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: occupational safety and health (OSH) management

Bibliographical references: General Survey on the Prevention of Industrial Accidents (1999)

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/kisya/daijin/20000807_01_d/20000807_01_d.html


- 2000 (previous survey 1995): Survey on industrial safety health (Roudo Anzen Eisei Kihon Chosa).

Population: companies with more than 10 employees; private sector; economic activities(according to NACE code): mining, quarrying and manufacturing (set C-D, except mining of coal and lignite; extraction of peat (10); extraction of crude petroleum and natural gas, service activities incidental to oil and gas extraction, excluding surveying (11); mining of uranium and thorium ores (12); mining of metal ores (13); other mining and quarrying (14); electricity, gas and water supply (set E); construction (set F); wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles, motorcycles and personal and household goods (G); transport, storage and communications (I).



Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Occupational safety and health (OSH) management, number of accidents in the workplace.

Bibliographical references: Basic Survey on Industrial Safety (2000) http://www.mhlw.go.jp/toukei/itiran/roudou/saigai/anzen/anzen00/




89


- 2001 (the previous survey was 1996): Survey on the labour environment (Rodosya Kenko Jokyo Chosa).

Population: companies with more than 10 employees; that bear an estimate of more thanone million yen per year for National Work Injury Insurance premiums, excluding public sector; economic activities (according to NACE code): mining, quarrying and manufacturing (set C-D); sale, maintenance and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail sale of automotive fuel (50, set G), land transport; transport via pipelines (60, set I).

Sampling strategy: stratified random sampling

Sample size: 11,000 companies, 1,000 construction sites, 12,000 workers

Subjects considered in the questionnaire: Occupational safety and health (OSH) management, exposure to chemical agents, safety at the workplace.

Bibliographical references: Survey on Labour Environment (1996) http://www.mhlw.go.jp/info/toukei/toukei/saigai/anei96-01.html


Website: http://www.mhlw.go.jp

Contact: Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare1-2-2 Kasumigaseki Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo


90

Country: USA

Survey Name: National Occupational Exposure Survey 1981-1983

Acronym: NOES

Institution: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Division ofSurveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, Surveillance Branch, Hazard Sectionconducted the NOES.


Editions: National Occupational Hazard Survey (NOHS): 1972-1974.

National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES): 1981-1983.

Next forecast ed.: 2003: next edition to be called the National Exposures at Work Survey (NEWS), to beimplemented on a sector by sector basis, starting with health services.

Objectives: Like its predecessor, the National Occupational Hazard Survey (NOHS), the NOES wasdesigned to provide the data necessary to describe potential exposure agents and profilehealth and safety programmes in American workplaces. The survey provides data onpotential occupational exposures to chemical, physical, and biological agents, and permitsan analysis of the changes in the workplace since the NOHS.

Specifically, the objectives were twofold:

1) to identify potential health hazards (i.e., chemical biological and physical agents and chronic trauma hazards) by occupation and industry;

2) to provide national estimates of the number of workers potentially exposed to chemical,biological and physical agents and chronic trauma hazards.


Population: The target population was defined as those establishments or job sites located in the UnitedStates reporting eight or more employees at the time of the survey, and with a primaryactivity or line of business on a list of target Standard Industrial Classification codes (SICs).

Only those establishments in the target industrial groups with eight or more employees wereconsidered to be in-scope in the NOES to maintain comparability with the earlier NationalOccupational Hazard Survey (NOHS). To accurately survey establishments with less thaneight employees would have greatly enlarged the survey sample while contributing little tocoverage of the worker population.

The target population excluded establishments engaged in agricultural production, anymining activity except oil and gas extraction, railroad transportation, private households,finance institutions, and all federal, state and municipal government facilities.

Codes for the major industrial groups included in the NOES are: agricultural services (07),oil and gas extraction (13); construction (15-17); manufacturing (20-39); transportation (40-49); wholesale/retail trade (50-59); services (70-79); health services (80).

Listings from the Bureau of the Census publication County Business Patterns - 1978 (CBP)provided data needed to establish sampling rates, while listings from the 1980 Dun andBradstreet Market Inventory (DMI) were used to select establishments.

The population size was 446,000 establishments.



91


Sample: Sampling strategy: The NOES used a two-stage sampling strategy for most of the sample:

1. The first stage involved the selection of a defined group of counties comprising the geographical of primary sampling units (PSUs) for the NOES. First stage selection of geographical areas was accomplished by random selection from strata (stratified probability sample) defined by geography, number of employees, and concentration of establishments in the target population.

2. The second stage, the selection of facilities to be surveyed, was done using a systematicprocedure within the chosen PSUs. Second stage selection of establishments employed systematic sampling from a list of establishments ordered by number of employees and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). Very large establishments (2,500 or more employees) were sampled separately in order to maintain nearly equal probabilities of selection for all facilities in this size category.

The sample of businesses surveyed in the NOES consists of 4,490 establishments in 98different geographic locations throughout the US.



Subjects consideredin the questionnaire: Occupational safety and health (OSH) management, exposure to physical agents (noise,

radiation, vibration, etc.), exposure to chemical agents, exposure to biological agents,physical workload, occupational and health outcomes.

Bibliographical references: 1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1974, 1977, 1978): National

Occupational Hazard Survey. DHEW (NIOSH) publication no. 74-127, 78-114, 77-213. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (1988, 1990a,b): National Occupational Exposure Survey. DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 88-106, 89-102, 89-103.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Also available at NIOSH web site).

Sieber W.K., Sundin D.S., Frazier T.M., Robinson C.F.: ‘Development, Use, andAvailability of a Job Exposure Matrix Based on National Occupational Hazard SurveyData.’ American Journal of Industrial Medicine 20:163-174 (1991).

Numerous other reports, articles, at least two book chapters.

Website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/89-103.html

Information public/accessible: Raw data: limited data in job exposure matrix

Questionnaires: contained in published documents

Coordinators and contact: Jim Boiano, NIOSH, 513-841-4246

E-mail: [email protected]


EF/03/71/EN

A comparative analysis - ArchiDok · 2006-07-10 · This report is available in electronic format...

Documents

Transcript of A comparative analysis - ArchiDok · 2006-07-10 · This report is available in electronic format...