Finnish discourses of the stakeholders on development of the implementation of EU legislation concerned with occupational safety and health in computer work

• Autorzy: Niskanen T.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The overall research objective was to empirically develop the ideas around a system of occupational safety and health (OSH) practices in visual display unit (VDU) work, to describe their relationship with the OSH legislation and to explore how these best practices work to achieve positive results. The aim of the present study was to explore qualitative perceptions of the stakeholders (Finnish Employers’ Associations, Employees Organizations and OSH Governmental Inspectorates) concerning the way that the OSH legislation on VDU work is being applied at work. Many stakeholders claim that technological advances require that in OSH the VDU legislation should be updated, especially that it should be clarified, e.g., when does the VDU worker have the right to obtain special eyeglasses needed for VDU work. Many stakeholders believe that additional guidelines concerning practical ergonomic arrangements in VDU work environment and eyeglasses of the VDU workers are needed. In VDU ergonomics, the co-operation between workplace and occupational health care professionals needs to be developed.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

EU legislation; directive; safety; health; computer; VDU; employers; employees; inspectors; qualitative

PL

bezpieczeństwo i higiena pracy; prawo pracy; przepisy bezpieczeństwa; zastosowanie komputerów

• Wydawca: Taylor & Francis
• Czasopismo: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
• Rocznik: 2015
• Tom: Vol. 21, No. 4
• Strony: 413--425
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 41 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Niskanen T.

• Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland

Bibliografia

• 1.Finnish Legislation. [Finnish Government Decree in VDU work 1405/1993]. Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 1993. Finnish. [cited 2013 August 2]. Available from: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/1993/19931405
• 2. EU Council Directive. Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC). OJ. 1990;L156:14–18. [cited 2013 August 2]. Availabe from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0270:EN:NOT
• 3.EU Commission. Evaluation in the Commission; 2010. [cited 2013 August 2]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/index_en.htm
• 4.EU Commission. Evaluation and impact assessment; 2010. [cited 2013 August 2]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=307andlangId=en(open in a new window)
• 5.European Study. Evaluation of the EU Directive 90/270/ EEC. The development of a methodology to assess the quality of EU Directives: pilot study on basis of the Directive on Visual Display Units (Directive 90/270 EEC). Integrated Cross-national Report. Munich, November 2007. [cited 2013 July 12]. Available from: http://www.bmas.de/portal/25944/property=pdf/evaluation_bildschirmarbeitsrichtlinie_bericht_englisch.pdf
• 6.van Gestel R, Vranken J. Assessing the accuracy of ex ante evaluation through feedback research: a case study. In: Verschuuren J, editor. The impact of legislation: a critical analysis of ex ante evaluation. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; 2009. p. 199–228.
• 7.Popelier P, Verlinden V. The context of the rise of ex ante evaluation. In: Verschuuren J, editor. The impact of legislation: a critical analysis of ex anteevaluation. Leiden: MartinusNijhoff; 2009. p. 13-38.
• 8.Danish Evaluation. Evaluation of the VDU directive. Danish Working Environment Authority and Ramboll Management, Århus; 2007.
• 9.Dutch evaluation. Dutch evaluation of the VDU Directive (Directive 270/90/EEC). Prepared by Bjorking, H, Pieters, I, Engelen, M, et al. Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment ; 2007.
• 10.Gervais RL, Williamson J, Sanders V, et al. Evaluation of the success in Great Britain of the Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment. A comparative assessment of the 1997 and 2007 evaluations. Health and Safety Executive, Research Report RR 622, 2008. [cited 2013 July 12]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr622.pdf
• 11.Gervais RL, Williamson J, Sanders V, et al. Evaluation of the success in Great Britain of the Directive on minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment. Health and Safety Executive, Research Report RR 628, 2008. [cited 2013 July 12]. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr628.pdf(open in a new window)
• 12.Niskanen T, Lehtelä J, Ketola R, et al. Results of Finnish national survey on EU legislation concerning computerwork. Appl Ergon. 2010;41:542–548.
• 13.Greimas AJ. On meaning: selected writings in semiotic theory. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press; 1987.
• 14.Greimas AJ. The social sciences: a semioticview. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press; 1990
• 15.Hébert L. Tools for text and image analysis: an introduction to applied semiotics. Universitédu Québec à Rimouski; 2011. [cited 2014 February 25]. Available from: http://www.signosemio.com/documents/Louis-Hebert-Tools-for-Texts-and-Images.pdf
• 16.Greimas AJ, Courtes J. Semiotics and language: ananalytical dictionary. Bloomington (IN): Indiana UP; 1982.
• 17.Hébert L. The actantial model. [cited 2014 February 25]. Available from: http://www.signosemio.com/greimas/actantial-model.asp
• 18.Lord RG, Dinh JE. Aggregation processes and levels of analysis as organizing structures for leadership theory. In: Day DV, Antonakis J, editors. The nature of leadership. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2012. p. 29-65.
• 19.Cunliffe A. Orientations to social constructionism: relationally responsive social constructionism and it simplications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning. 2008;39:123–139.
• 20.Fairhurst G, Grant D. The socialconstruction of leadership: a sailingguide. Management Communication Quarterly. 2010;24:171-210.
• 21.Uhl-Bien M, Maslyn J, Ospina S. The nature of relational leadership: a multitheoretical lens on leadership relationships and processes. In: Day DV, Antonakis J, editors. The nature of leadership. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2012. p. 289–330.
• 22.Niskanen T, Lehtelä J, Länsikallio R. Application of a screening method in assessing occupational safety and health of computer workstations. Int J Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2014;20:167–174. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2014.11077032
• 23.Jenster PV, Hussey DE. Company analysis: determining strategic capability. New York: Wiley; 2001.
• 24.Robertson MM, O'Neill MJ, Miller H. Reducing musculoskeletal discomfort: effects of an office ergonomics workplace and training intervention. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2003;9:491-502. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2003.11076585
• 25.Malińska M, Bugajska J. The influence of occupational and non-occupational factors on the prevalence of musculoskeletal complaints in users of portable computers. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2010;16:337–343. doi:10.1080/10803548.2010.11076850
• 26.Sigurdsson SO, Artnak M, Needham M, et al. Motivating ergonomic computer workstation setup: sometimes trainingis not enough. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2012;18:27-33. doi:10.1080/10803548.2012.11076912
• 27.Ziefle M. Sitting posture, postural discomfort, and visual performance: a criticalview on the interdependence of cognitive and anthropometric factors in the VDU workplace. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2003;9:503–514. doi:10.1080/10803548.2003.11076586
• 28.Kvale S, Brinkmann S. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2009.
• 29.Lincoln YS, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage; 1985.
• 30.Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generatione valuation. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1989.
• 31.Eriksson P, Kovalainen A. Qualitative methods in business research. London: Sage; 2008.
• 32.Denzin NK, Lincoln YS. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. London: Sage; 1998.
• 33.Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.

Uwagi

PL

Opracowanie ze środków MNiSW w ramach umowy 812/P-DUN/2016 na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.