In 1997 more than three people died every day in work-related accidents. Researchers at Cape Town’s Alternative Information and Development Centre ask why the figures are so high
Business is delighted to bask in the publicity given to its campaigns against crime. However, it plays another role in law and order that receives (virtually) no mention. And it is not unhappy about this lack of publicity, for what is being kept in the shadows is its role as a leading lawbreaker.
Most health and safety accidents at work are caused by employers’ breaches of the law. The silence surrounding this is all the more surprising, given that the problem of accidents at work is both enormous and well documented. These points leap off the pages of the recently published 1997 annual reports of the Department of Labour and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Fund.
No less remarkable is the lack of public response to the authorities’ open acknowledgement of their failure to implement the law. The general inability of the police and justice system to enforce the law is a matter of major political concern – except when the law affects the health and safety of citizens at work. Then, not even the state’s open acknowledgement of collusion with lawbreakers from the world of business merits a murmur.
The picture painted in gruesome detail by the labour department’s and compensation fund’s annual reports shows that at least 863 workers were killed at work in 1997 – more than three workers died every weekday throughout the year. And this excludes all workers killed on mines.
Of the reported accidents, 666 resulted in amputations and 1 606 produced fractures. Thirty-six per cent of the accidents resulted in sick leave of between two and four weeks, while 27% were off work for four to 16 weeks.
The total cost of reported accidents in 1993 was R733 659 709. In that year 22,23-million person-days were lost as a result of reported workplace accidents – compared to the 3,9- million person-days lost as a result of strike action.
The actual position is considerably worse than even the official statistics indicate. There is large-scale under-reporting of accidents. An indication of the scale of the problem is that not even workplace deaths are accurately reported.
The overriding cause of the [serious machinery] incidents is ascribed to “failure by management to ensure the correct operational procedures are being applied by workers”.
Seventy-seven per cent of contraventions of health and safety law that resulted in reported “accidents” in 1997 were due to employers’ failure to meet their statutory obligations. These obligations include the duty to train workers and establish adequate procedures to enforce safe practices.
Where is the sheriff? The Occupational Health Inspectorate enforces health and safety legislation other than on mines. This inspectorate consists of 93 inspectors dispersed across 10 provincial offices and three labour centres. These 93 inspectors are responsible for enforcing legislation in all factories, farms, offices and shops throughout South Africa!
In 1997 health and safety prosecutions were down 66% compared to 1996. The two primary reasons given for this were the large number of junior staff employed as health and safety inspectors, and a vacancy rate of 33%.
The inspectorate’s primary role includes the rendering of an inspection service. Workplaces registered as being “explosives workplaces” are manifestly among the most dangerous. There are 57 such workplaces nationally – 51% of them were not inspected in 1997.
No less disturbing than the small number of inspections that do take place is the large number of infringements of the law revealed.
Boilers, for instance, are an inherently dangerous place. There were 8 805 registered boilers in South Africa last year. Only 848 (or 10,8%) of them were inspected. Yet these few inspections revealed 1 678 infringements of health and safety law.
Enforcement of the law has been deliberately designed to invite non-compliance. In the most unlikely event of a miscreant employer being found out, the worst that is likely to happen to the employer in the first instance is being served with an order to comply with the law.
The policy of the labour department also encourages collusion with the lawbreakers. The reporting of accidents provides a striking example of this form of collusion.
The law requires employers to notify the department of all accidents or occupational diseases within seven days of each occurrence. Rather than enforce this law, the department keeps statistics on the extent to which the law is flouted. Thus the department is able to say how long it takes those employers who do bother to report accidents to actually do so.
During 1997 employers took 107 days on average to report occurrences that are supposed to be reported within seven days. Again, rather than implement the law, the department is attempting to get around the problem by allowing employers to submit reports by phone. The law itself makes no provision for this new procedure.
In general, none of these problems are new. Under apartheid, health and safety legislation – to the extent it existed – was never taken seriously by either the employers or the state itself. What has changed is that we are now in a democracy governed by a Constitution that enshrines the dignity of all inhabitants and guarantees everyone the right to “an environment that is not harmful to their health or well- being”.
Unfortunately, little of this has had any impact on the health and safety problems faced by citizens at work. What appears to be happening in practice is that, having brought democracy to our land, new South Africa seems to be ready to make accommodations with the otherwise untouched features of the old order. The labour department would seem to be caught up in this wider accommodation.
On the other hand, we should applaud the department’s candour in detailing the realities faced by workers. The department has given us the information to make us deeply concerned. The challenge is for us to do something.
ENDS