工作安排对危险暴露的影响:澳大利亚和英国园艺的研究

Q2 Social Sciences
A. Bamford
{"title":"工作安排对危险暴露的影响:澳大利亚和英国园艺的研究","authors":"A. Bamford","doi":"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper describes how work arrangements, particularly subcontracting and temporary employment, are associated with factors related to pesticide exposure and to worker perceptions of pesticide exposure in two countries with similar but not identical regulatory frameworks: Australia and the United Kingdom. Data are drawn from 67 semi-structured interviews with horticultural fieldworkers, employers, labour providers, and industry, union and government representatives. The regulatory frameworks were compared and the real, or perceived, impacts of regulatory provisions on occupational safety and health outcomes were examined. For both countries, a number of conclusions are drawn. Subcontracting and temporary work arrangements appeared to affect occupational safety and health, including pesticide exposures. Factors explaining this include economic pressures, worker mobility and the fracturing of tasks into separate contractual units that contributed to hazardous forms of work disorganisation, and regulatory failure. Financial pressure was accentuated by the subletting of work under a subcontracting system; employment and income insecurity, as well as intense competition for work, contributed to a range of hazardous practices among labour subcontractors, including accepting hazardous tasks. The critical factor seemed to be that the work was temporary and itinerant. Reactive and infrequent government inspection exacerbates the insidious health risks associated with exposure. The findings raise questions about the extent to which the vulnerability that comes from being foreign-born can be disassociated from vulnerability arising from the work arrangement.","PeriodicalId":43946,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","volume":"13 1","pages":"23 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Influence of Work Arrangements on Hazardous Exposures: A Study of Australian and United Kingdom Horticulture\",\"authors\":\"A. Bamford\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper describes how work arrangements, particularly subcontracting and temporary employment, are associated with factors related to pesticide exposure and to worker perceptions of pesticide exposure in two countries with similar but not identical regulatory frameworks: Australia and the United Kingdom. Data are drawn from 67 semi-structured interviews with horticultural fieldworkers, employers, labour providers, and industry, union and government representatives. The regulatory frameworks were compared and the real, or perceived, impacts of regulatory provisions on occupational safety and health outcomes were examined. For both countries, a number of conclusions are drawn. Subcontracting and temporary work arrangements appeared to affect occupational safety and health, including pesticide exposures. Factors explaining this include economic pressures, worker mobility and the fracturing of tasks into separate contractual units that contributed to hazardous forms of work disorganisation, and regulatory failure. Financial pressure was accentuated by the subletting of work under a subcontracting system; employment and income insecurity, as well as intense competition for work, contributed to a range of hazardous practices among labour subcontractors, including accepting hazardous tasks. The critical factor seemed to be that the work was temporary and itinerant. Reactive and infrequent government inspection exacerbates the insidious health risks associated with exposure. The findings raise questions about the extent to which the vulnerability that comes from being foreign-born can be disassociated from vulnerability arising from the work arrangement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"23 - 7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Practice in Health and Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2015.11667815","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要:本文描述了澳大利亚和英国这两个监管框架相似但不相同的国家的工作安排,特别是分包和临时就业,是如何与农药暴露相关因素以及工人对农药暴露的看法相关联的。数据来自67个对园艺现场工作者、雇主、劳动力提供者、行业、工会和政府代表的半结构化访谈。对监管框架进行了比较,并审查了监管规定对职业安全和健康结果的实际或感知影响。对于这两个国家,得出了一些结论。分包和临时工作安排似乎影响到职业安全和健康,包括农药接触。解释这一现象的因素包括经济压力、工人流动性、将任务分解为单独的合同单位,这些因素导致了危险的工作混乱形式,以及监管失灵。在分包制度下将工作分租,加重了财政压力;就业和收入缺乏保障,以及工作竞争激烈,导致劳务分包商采取一系列危险做法,包括接受危险任务。关键的因素似乎是这项工作是临时的和流动的。被动和不频繁的政府检查加剧了与接触相关的潜在健康风险。研究结果提出了一个问题,即在多大程度上,来自外国出生的脆弱性可以与来自工作安排的脆弱性分离开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Influence of Work Arrangements on Hazardous Exposures: A Study of Australian and United Kingdom Horticulture
Abstract This paper describes how work arrangements, particularly subcontracting and temporary employment, are associated with factors related to pesticide exposure and to worker perceptions of pesticide exposure in two countries with similar but not identical regulatory frameworks: Australia and the United Kingdom. Data are drawn from 67 semi-structured interviews with horticultural fieldworkers, employers, labour providers, and industry, union and government representatives. The regulatory frameworks were compared and the real, or perceived, impacts of regulatory provisions on occupational safety and health outcomes were examined. For both countries, a number of conclusions are drawn. Subcontracting and temporary work arrangements appeared to affect occupational safety and health, including pesticide exposures. Factors explaining this include economic pressures, worker mobility and the fracturing of tasks into separate contractual units that contributed to hazardous forms of work disorganisation, and regulatory failure. Financial pressure was accentuated by the subletting of work under a subcontracting system; employment and income insecurity, as well as intense competition for work, contributed to a range of hazardous practices among labour subcontractors, including accepting hazardous tasks. The critical factor seemed to be that the work was temporary and itinerant. Reactive and infrequent government inspection exacerbates the insidious health risks associated with exposure. The findings raise questions about the extent to which the vulnerability that comes from being foreign-born can be disassociated from vulnerability arising from the work arrangement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信