CCA Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey
August 1999, A Report for UN / Turkey
When one speaks of “occupational health and safety” what must be understood is the physical, mental and social hazards which the very act ofworking poses for the working individual. The main framework of the issue is laid down by the approach of community medicine which regards human being as forming ai whole with his or her environment, and a multi-disciplinary outlook whick forms an sine qua non for the former.
However, it must be said that in the universities of Turkey, there is only limited horizontal-vertical (in terms of coverage and depth)development of both community medicine approach and occupational health and safety.
“Whatis available” in Turkey, in terms of both living and working conditions is rather limited and does not cover all. These restrictions or limitations can be outlined as follows: Income to make a decent life; a social security system which safeguards individuals against risks; and vocational training processes which guarantee jobs and cover all children involved in working life.
Deprivations which push children into working life also create passive adults who can but accept unfavourable conditions. In Turkey, working conditions are not favourable either for adults of for children who have to work. Work accidents and occupational diseases which come out as a result of deficiencies and shortcomings in the field of “health checks ups at recruitment and in regular intervals, and biological & environmental monitoring” give us hints about the structural causes of criteria we are going to use to assess the level of occupational health and safety in Turkey.
Criteria to be Used to Assess of Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey
|
In Turkey, occupational health and safety have not transformed into a way of life.In other words, they have not yet beocame an integral part of the life and productive activities of huamn beings. The basic reason is that the philosophy underlying this approach has not found reflection in other spheres of life. We can cite the chaotic situation in traffic and high rates of injuries and deaths as a result of this chaotic situation… Fatal intoxication emerging from the misuse of agricultural chemicals for flour or salt. Participation to working life of very young children in both urban and rural sectors… The surprisingly large number of those who do nottake even simplest precautions by thinking “nothing will happen to me anyway” as if challenging all available statistics…
The experience of centuries has revealed that occupational accidents and diseases are fully avoidable and preventable by appropriate precautions and safety measures. Then every single occupational disease or work accident points out that there is neglect or something missing in precautions.
The 1997 data for working accidents and occupational diseases are as follows :
- Number of persons temporarily kept out of work : 98 318
- Permanent but partial disability to work : 1 269
- Partial disability to work : 2 154
- Permanent and full disability to work : 951
- Casualty : 1 473
It is beyond any question that such data is to be used while assessing the occupational health and safety level in a country. However, there is still a very important indicator, even ranking at the top of others, which gives early warning on hazards: Assessment of working environments.
In Turkey, there are studies aiming at the “assesment of working environments” and “early diagnosis of occupational diseases” which have been conducted in limited areas and thus not representing the national situatiton as a whole. Surveys conducted by basing upon some objective criteria derived from international standards exhibit that there are substantial differences between small and large scale enterprises. These surveys also point out that the priority issue of employers is “precautions against fire” while first aid arrangements remain at the bottom of the list. This indicates that the components assigned more importance is capital rather than labor, and human beings can benefit from these precautions only directly.
TABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY SUB INDICATORS IN SMALL ENTERPRISES BY WHETHER THEY EMPLOY CHILDREN OR NOT
| OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & EVALUATION MARKS SAFETY MEASURE | ||
|---|---|---|
| Workplaces with workers ITEMS | 15 years old and under | older than 15 years |
| Working environment conditions | 2,894 | 3,146 |
| Machinery and other facilities available | 2,653 | 2,886 |
| Ergonomic conditions | 2,105 | 2,380 |
| Warning signs and posters | 1,807 | 1,873 |
| Ventilation | 2,721 | 2,866 |
| Fire risk and fire fighting measures | 2,961 | 3,273 |
| Personal hygiene conditions | 2,653 | 2,226 |
| First aid | 1,759 | 1,900 |
| Personal protective equipment | 2,317 | 2,226 |
| Attitude of the employer | 2,028 | 2,480 |
| General Evaluation | 2,392 | 2,558 |
| Number of workplaces | 51 | 75 |
* Full points : 5.000
Unfortunately, regular records and statistics covering all workers are not available. This situation stems from different social security schemes as well as from the failure to resort to scientific methods in this area. Failure to develop institutional policies supported by scientific methods and facts prevented the structure which is in charge of considering occupational hazards and appropriate measures from concentrating duly on these issues.
Errors existing in records and statistics and resulting difficulties of comparison made it impossible for this note to give place to some universal criteria. For example, weight an frequency ratios of occupational accidents have not been calculated. The Government Employees’ Retirement Fund gives figures only as to the level of disability as far as “disability stemming from duty” is concerned. In other words, there are no numerical data as to the number of accidents, absenteeism and total number of days in work. In 1997, there were 6 901 government employees, with the exclusion of those falling disable because of armed clashes, who became inactive during their performance of any official duty. As to the social security scheme which covers self-employed persons, there is not data at all regarding “occupational accidents”, “work safety” or “disability coming from work performance”.
Besides, the facts about occupational diseases as they are identified by the SSK (Turkish Social Insurance Association) constitute only the tip of the iceberg. Testifying this situatiion is the facts about losses emanating from occupational health as exhibited by various researchers. There are identifications covering a wide range from audial disabilities stemming from noise to gene damages resulting from exposition to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The fact that these surveys mostly cover children and young people suggests that the symptoms of such damages get deeper in the course of time since these people well be working longer. Unfortunately, neither Turkey nor SSK in particular is rich in terms of such data.
The most important obstacle to the execution of both environmental and biological monitoring in work places and to the fulfilment of relevant obligations by employers is the infancy of organisations which can extend such services to all enterprises. In this field, there is need for a non-governmental focus whose decisions will be respected by all social parties. The absence of such a focus of attraction makes its adverse results felt at every step.
The problem of occupational health and safety concentrates at small and medium scale enterprises. According to the Turkish Labor Code, the status of employing 50 or more workers brings along some obligations for employers and benefits for workers in terms of health and safety services. These obligations and benefits include the availability of a occupational physician and nurse, and possibility of forming workplace councils. In addition, trade unions are also more active in such enterprises, which also entails some other services for workers.
A survey of collective bargaining procedures in 20 year intervals reveals that no substantial progress could be made in the field of occupational health and safety. As a matter of fact, interventions of trade unions in the field of occupational health and safety are far from being satisfactory. This weakness which manifests itself in the defence of the right to work in safe and sound environments also exposes the fact that even in large enterprises working conditions and shaped only along with the preferences of employers, mostly through a model far from being participatory and/or only along the lines of imported technology.
Another criteria which confirms to this is the limited number of labour inspectors employed by Ministry of Labour and Social Security which is in charge of supervising the implementation of labur laws, and the absence of supplementary personnel and experts to support the inspection system. In sum, whether an enterprise is of large, medium or small scale, intentions of the employer dominate over legal provisions at workplace level while competition among enterprises further encourages and deepens existing inequalities.
Insufficiency of services directed to workplaces locate small and medium scale enterprises in a disadvantaged position and transform them into a sphere o economis activity where “unfair” practices and attitudes concentrate. Considering that informal (and uninsured) employment mostly takes place at such enterprises, it can be concluded that what is given by statistics under-represent what the real case is in actual life.
According to the SSK statistics, enterprises employing less than 50 workers have a share of 98.47 % in total. Tha share of these enterprises in the total number of insured workers is 56.92 %, and their share in the total number of insured workers who had occupational accident or contracted any occupational disease is 73.79 %. These are also the enterprises where child labour is employed most intensively.
Available surveys show that working conditions get worse the number of child workers rise, and working hours get longer smaller the ages of children employed are.
Meanwhile, there are some multi-dimensional factors which raise the number of child workers (or apprentices) under age 15 and 18 employed by small and medium scale enterprises. The high possibility thus posed for the younger generation to face particularly adverse conditions may endanger the future of the country. DIE (State Institute of Statistics) points out that there are four times more children working in industry uninsured than those legally insured as apprentices by the State. According to the 1997 statistics of the SSK, 182 young & child workers under age 19 were driven out of working life as a result of death or permanent disability from occupational accidents an occupational diseases. This figure corresponds to 3.1 % of all who are out of employment for the same reasons. 2.7 % of children were granted temporary abstinence from work and returned back later.
TABLE
DISTRIBUTION BY AGE OF CASES OF DEATH AND DISABILITY TO WORK AS A RESULT OF OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS AND DISEASES
| Age group | Temporary Disability TOTAL | Permanent Disability TOTAL | Death TOTAL | Total |
| – 14 | 74 | 3 | 6 | 9 |
| 15-19 | 2 618 | 158 | 15 | 173 |
| 20+ | 96 881 | 4 226 | 1 452 | 5 665 |
| TOTAL | 99 373 | 4 374 | 1 473 | 5 847 |
In 1997, there were 5 874 persons driven out of employment either because of death or permanent disability to work stemming from occupational accidents and occupational diseases. The avarage age of persons dying is 43 for females and 40 for males, and average age of those who fell permanently disable is 33 for females and 39 for males. All these openly exhibit the social cost of unhealthy working conditions.
When we look at the distribution of occupational accidents with respect to the number of insured employees at workplaces, we notice that such accidents become more frequent in those enterprises employing less than 50 workers (73.8 %). Among such enterprises, those which employ less than 9 workers have the highest share of accidents with 54.6 %.
Therefore, in order to fully implement the right to occupational health and safetly with all its rules at small and medium scale enterprises, various models of intervention must be tested and successful ones must be expanded at national scale.
Turkey is in a lucky position as far as the availability of model experiments and affirmation of their practicability are concerned. The work of the Fisek Institute (an NGO) conducted in 3 big cities (Ankara, İstanbul, Denizli) and 5 centers in the field of working children and occupational health and safety constitute an important model in fighting out this injustice.
The most important one among the characteristics of this model work is its emphasis that employers, as the party under obligation, should finance and/or materialise occupational health and safety services.
The characteristics must be maintained and supported in the development and expansion of similar model works. Though the sustainability of the model is ensured, obstacles to sustainability get stronger as the time period is extended.
The “public” intervention in the field of occupational health and safety is limited to the observance of the fulfilment of legal obligations by employers and introduction of compulsory measures when necessary. The minimisation of “force” or “compulsion” in this field can be realised only with the awareness and responsibility of the social parties and voluntary organisations, and with their participation to the process of decision making.
The service and intervention mechanisms to be created must be integrated to the community life and moulded with the culture of the people, while protecting such mechanisms from the trap of populism. The most important role in this regard falls upon the triangle formed by workers, employers and voluntary organisations.
In addition to small gleams of hope in this field, there is also the need to have the public sector renew and re-structure itself. The projects of the Ministry of Labour within the framework of the ILO/IPEC Programme and efforts for the “Re-structuring of the General Diretorate of Occupational Health and Safety” and for the “Law on Occupational Health and Safety” are some examples.