Measuring job quality: a study with bus drivers

There is growing interest in the contribution which job design can make to worker health; also a desire to better understand the multidimensional notion of ‘job quality’ and to develop approaches to measuring this. This paper reviews concepts of ‘job quality’ and ‘good jobs’ and examines these issues in the work of bus drivers, an occupational group commonly reported as having poor health and poor working conditions. The DGB-Index (Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund Good Work Index), a tool used recently in Germany for measuring job quality, was translated and administered to a sample of UK bus drivers (n = 381). It found job quality to be significantly lower than that for a group of non-drivers in the same organisation; and better than that for a sample of German bus drivers. We conclude that the DGB-Index is an effective tool for measuring job quality and providing feedback to employers; and could be used to compare job quality between organisations or internationally

How do people differentiate between jobs: and how do they define a good job?

Employed individuals from a range of jobs (n=18) were interviewed using a repertory grid technique, to explore the criteria they used to distinguish between different jobs. The concepts of 'a good job' and 'a job good for health' were also discussed. Interactions with others and the job itself were the most commonly used criteria and were also the most common features of a 'good job'. Pay and security were mentioned frequently but were less important when comparing jobs and when defining a 'good job'. Physical activity was rarely associated by interviewees with a 'good job' but was frequently associated with a 'job good for health'. A comprehensive definition of a 'good job' needs to take all these factors into account

What is a 'good' job? Modelling job quality for blue collar workers

This paper proposes a model of job quality, developed from interviews with blue collar workers: bus drivers, manufacturing operatives and cleaners (n=80). The model distinguishes between core features, important for almost all workers, and 'job fit' features, important to some but not others, or where individuals might have different preferences. Core job features found important for almost all interviewees included job security, personal safety, and having enough pay to meet their needs. 'Job fit' features included autonomy and the opportunity to form close relationships. These showed more variation between participants; priorities were influenced by family commitments, stage of life and personal preference. The resulting theoretical perspective indicates the features necessary for a job to be considered 'good' by the person doing it, whilst not adversely affecting their health. The model should have utility as a basis for measuring and improving job quality and the laudable goal of creating 'good jobs'. Practitioner summary Good work can contribute positively to health and wellbeing, but there is a lack of agreement regarding the concept of a 'good' job. A model of job quality has been constructed based on semi-structured worker interviews (n=80). The model emphasises the need to take into account variation between individuals in their preferred work characteristics

Improving occupational health risk management in SMEs: the role of major projects - Summary report

Improving occupational health risk management in SMEs: the role of major projects - Summary repor

Bus driving - can it be a good job?

Bus driving is recognised as an occupation where jobs are typically of poor quality and can have adverse effects on health. The current study explored how job quality differed for bus and coach drivers from three companies, identifying the most realistic areas for improvement, based on the similarities and differences between the companies. It also confirmed the usefulness of this approach for ergonomics in general. In areas of stress management and low control there was found to be limited potential for change. Scope for improvement was found in planning of working hours, health and safety, and vehicle/maintenance quality in some companies. However, it was acknowledged that change was unlikely to occur unless employers could be persuaded that it would be beneficial to their organisation

Costs of occupational ill‐health in construction

Costs of occupational ill‐health in constructio

Improving occupational health risk management in SMEs: the role of major projects - Research report

Project background Although the management of occupational safety and health (OSH) in construction has been problematic historically, there have been improvements in recent years. Health, however, is typically more difficult to manage than safety, and is often the poor relation, despite the evidence that the human costs of work-related ill-health far exceed those of accidents in construction. Improving practices in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can be particularly difficult but there is evidence that, for safety at least, good practices ‘trickle’ from major projects and companies to smaller organisations and to those who work in them. This research assessed the impact that large projects can have specifically on the way SMEs manage occupational health (OH) risks: it used in-depth interviews with workers, managers and OSH professionals. The research was conducted on the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre (DNRC), a major construction project which sought to drive good practice in its supply chain. By focussing in detail on eleven of these ‘mid-level’ companies – which sit between the well-resourced main contractors and very small, typically family-run, micro-organisations – it was possible to explore the specific barriers to good practice becoming embedded and consider the interventions necessary to overcome these. Key findings Many of those working on the project considered that the general arrangements for health risk management were similar to the way they usually worked, and particularly were in line with the way that they would work on other high-profile projects. This reduced the likelihood of those companies learning new practices specifically from this project. Nevertheless, there were some cases where subcontractors had purchased new equipment or adopted new habits to meet the requirements in relation to the management of dust or manual handling. This had given them an insight into the usefulness and benefits of such tools or measures and increased their commitment to use them elsewhere. The main area where interviewees reported requirements on this project to be substantially different to their usual practices was for health assessments. This was an area where the client/main contractor had set out to achieve high standards, by bringing an OH provider onto site and requiring that all contractors arranged health checks for their workers. It was also an area where many of the subcontractors were currently falling below recognised good practice. Some companies which had not done health assessments previously said they would now continue with them; and those who were already doing them to a limited degree had used the project to drive the process forward internally. Some had also learnt about risk assessing and supporting individuals with health conditions, largely as a result of discussions with the occupational health adviser (OHA) on site. Many operational workers interviewed were well informed about risk; they were also highly motivated to take care of their health. There was substantial evidence of ‘trickle-down’, that these workers learnt from large projects such as this and carried this knowledge with them. Those in more senior or professional roles also learnt and transferred good practice between jobs. The subcontractors which adopted good practices most willingly were those which were already working hard to improve their OSH. This typically reflected a growing recognition of their responsibility and duty of care towards their workforce and also an organisational desire to do more work on prestigious projects (which were likely to pay the subcontractors enough to be able to work to these higher standards). One of the biggest barriers to good practice in relation to occupational health risks was a lack of knowledge – individuals at all levels made decisions based on an incorrect understanding of either the risks involved or the legal requirements. For example, the legal requirements relating to health surveillance were widely misunderstood; also, many workers believed masks to be the best solution to dust exposure but underestimated the importance of being clean shaven. Many interviewees commented that their main exposure to health hazards, particularly noise and dust, arose from the activities of others. Typically, they relied on PPE to protect them in these situations. A third barrier to good practice was the relatively high proportion of subcontract, self-employed or agency workers. This reflects common working practice in the industry, and the high turnover of workers on site was reported to influence training, safety culture and the costs and provision of health assessments. However, there were examples of contractors working hard to overcome this, by using the same subcontractors or self-employed workers regularly, or actively increasing the number of workers employed directly. Cost was also identified as a potential barrier to good practice: not necessarily for those working on this project, but, in their opinion, for others on less prestigious projects and those running smaller businesses. Conclusions and Recommendations This research has confirmed the impact that major projects can have on driving good practice along the supply chain and that this applies to health as much as it does to safety. It is therefore important that the clients on such projects: • Set and enforce consistently high standards, to expose the supply chain and its workforce to good practices and encourage them to rise to these expectations • Set expectations for the provision of health assessments, so that companies are motivated and supported to put mechanisms in place • Make such expectations very clear at the tender stage to ensure that work is priced and planned appropriately • Employ suitable occupational health specialists such as OH advisers and occupational hygienists to raise standards and support and educate managers and OSH practitioners • Actively develop knowledge in the supply chain by sharing the expertise of in-house specialists • Manage the interactions between contractors to minimise worker exposures from trades other than their own Additionally, industry wide commitment is required relating to: • Consistency within the industry, and ensuring that prequalification and accreditation schemes set high standards for health alongside those for safety • Training for managers, supervisors and OSH professionals to ensure they are as knowledgeable about health as they are about safety • Improved materials for workforce training so that they fully understand the impact of work related ill-health and know how to avoid it • Increased education regarding OH/medical obligations so that senior managers and others in small companies understand what sensitive data they should and should not collect • Processes for managing OH data at an industry level to ensure that records can follow a worker from one project or employer to another, and that all are working to the same minimum standard; such a process could then operate alongside the current requirement for each worker to have a CSCS card. • Increasing the availability of specialist resource such as OH advisers, OH physicians and occupational hygienists, as there is a shortage of all disciplines across the UK Ongoing efforts will be required to achieve widespread change. Clients on major projects need to focus on setting high standards and clear expectations; and ongoing engagement from major contractors and from bodies such as the Health in Construction Leadership Group, Build UK, and Working Well Together are important to propagate good practice through the supply chain. At the same time, wider industry interventions and continued technological advancements will be needed to enable and build on this; alongside legal intervention where necessary to support the minimum acceptable standard

Managing the unknown; the health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment

The application of nanomaterials, containing particles 1000 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair, is increasing but uncertainties persist regarding their potential health effects. An ongoing study to identify where nanomaterials are used in construction and to assess the impact of demolition processes on particle release has identified difficulties which arise when dealing with the unknown: assessing, and managing the risks of these, and other, new materials. The widespread use of materials whose risks are inadequately understood is clearly unsatisfactory. However, the timing of a detailed health evaluation for a new product or process is not straightforward - a focus on these aspects too early in a developmental lifecycle may derail potentially promising innovations. It is also necessary to carefully balance benefit and risk. A product with moderate risk potential may be tolerated provided there are significant benefits, and adequate control measures are available. Questions also arise regarding who should carry out and fund health risk assessments for new materials. Manufacturers clearly have responsibilities, but there are also advantages in centrally funded, objective assessment. Particular complications arise when assessing the health risks for nanomaterials in view of their wide variability and the lack of adequate exposure data. There is no requirement to label nano-enabled building materials. This makes it difficult to assess the extent of their usage, and hence also to determine the health risks to those working with them, or exposed to them due to demolition or recycling at the end of the product or building life. Manufacturers, researchers, governments and wider society share responsibility for addressing these challenges. However, there are steps which constructors can take in the interim to minimise the impact on those working with these uncertainties

Managing the unknown: addressing the potential health risks of nanomaterials in the built environment

Nanomaterials offer significant potential for high performing new products in the built environment and elsewhere. However, there are uncertainties regarding their potential adverse health effects and the extent to which they are currently used. A desk study and interviews with those working across the construction, demolition and product manufacture sectors (n=59) identified the current state of knowledge regarding nanomaterial use within the built environment. Some nanomaterials are potentially toxic, particularly those based on fibres; others are much less problematic but the evidence base is incomplete. Very little is known regarding the potential for exposure for those working with nano-enabled construction materials. Identifying which construction products contain nanomaterials, and which nanomaterials these might be, is very difficult due to inadequate labelling by product manufacturers. Consequently, those working with nano-enabled products typically have very limited knowledge or awareness of this. Further research is required regarding the toxicology of nanomaterials and the potential for exposure during construction and demolition. Better sharing of the information which is already available is also required through the construction, demolition and manufacture / supply chains. This is likely to be important for other innovative products and processes in construction, not just those which use nanomaterials

Waking up to fatigue

Research conducted on Tideway with stakeholders who work in tunnelling suggests that current shift patterns and working arrangements in the sector are problematic: but addressing this is difficult given cost constraints, tight deadlines and the choices workers make to suit their personal circumstances. Tideway has thrown down the gauntlet by specifying that tunnelling shifts on the project must not exceed ten hours