6.1. Workplace intervention

The implementation of OHS and ergonomic applications in SMEs assumes a socio-industrial consensus and thus it is important to publicise the risks of work hazards, not only to the workers, but also to the general public. Improvement of health, hygiene and safety consciousness should be seen beyond the focus of paycheques and profits. The workers must be well aware of what workplace intervention is (Kogi et al. 1999), and how work-related stress factors might influence someone to implement local measures. They should follow good, time proven examples of work organisation styles to enhance efficiency and productivity. Although there could be difficulties, obstacles and constraints for workplace intervention in Bangladesh due to multi-factorial effects (Fig. 6) on the workers, factory owners (FO) and employers association (EA) but they need all the more to undergo modifications by demonstrating high optimal levels of health, hygiene and safety measures in SMEs.

Workplace intervention can lead to a better health and safety process when semi-automation, job rotation or a good shift-schedule allows workers" flexibility in repetitive and strenuous tasks. Such intervention mechanisms may be introduced in metal workshops and other factories (study III), agro-chemicals factories (study II) and other small industry activities (study IV) to minimise WRPs. In such a case, major changes should not bother other avenues of OHS. The procedure of such changes (in layout, working height, work-line, etc.) should, above all, be realistic and pragmatic to ensure successful workplace intervention through appropriate design and development. Some modifications in work sites (study III & V) could result in new ways of fostering sustained improvement. Changes of non-ergonomic job tasks in small industry activities (study IV) are also necessary as practical means for the improvement of OHS.

Workplace intervention means improved health, safety and ergonomic applications through collaborative efforts from all the parties concerned. It is also treated as an efficient use of local resources for good work, increased productivity and less injuries in the workplace. It is believed that the effectiveness of health and safety practice will be achieved—once the new work routines become established and WRLL is implemented in practice. Workplace intervention also based on workers’ performance response through physiological and psycho-behavioural adaptation and other local issues (Ahasan et al. 2001). Therefore professionals living in DCs need to be concerned about workers’ physiological and psychological limits with regard to working hours and of the human circadian rhythm in shift work (see study VI—VII) in particular. Therefore, physiological and behavioural adaptation, as well as an understanding of such workplace intervention by local workers and factory owners (FO), is required to recommend local measures.

The workers in SMEs need a whole new set of adaptations, both on the part of their physical and mental capacity. Maximum adaptability of local workers will occur when dynamic stability among the work-tasks or job content is ergonomically designed. For this, an improved mechanism (motivating key persons) should be put in place to seek workers’ and employers’ opinions (Fig. 7). Researchers should therefore consult with the local workers in order to encourage or empower them to think about adaptability procedure since they are not truly habituated with sudden change or ergonomic applications. Recommendations should be based identifying key variables that influence workers’ performance level and auto response or habituated performance (cultural significance in work systems) and the existing maintenance criteria (sweeping, cleaning, brushing, servicing, etc).

In case of strenuous tasks, changing positions throughout the day will also help to reduce stress and strain on the muscles. A short break (7—10 minutes), for instance, is better for small industry activity (study IV) that it allows a worker’s eyes, neck, back and shoulders to rest. Frequent short breaks, along with the provision of drinkable water can be treated as counter measures to heat stress. It is especially helpful for steel and re-rolling mill workers (study V). Malchaire et al. (1999) illustrated some strategies to prevent an excessive physical stress and the reduction of heat stress and physical work effort. The work effort, physical and cognitive capacities of manual workers are also involved in various types of work activity that should be safe, healthy and hygienic. The relationship between local workers’ demographic profiles, personal health, physiological characteristics, other factors (salary system, day off, sick leave, welfare, transportation, housing) and work environment (work pattern, climate, layout, factory premises) is therefore important for workplace intervention.

Supportive processes of workplace intervention in SMEs should consider an organisational commitment because immediate action is not possible to correct dangerous work situations where no organised safety management (Zohar 1980) system exists. It is also believed that a management without a strong safety climate consistently weakens workers’ general perceptions about health and safety. Hence, the role of an organisational structure is important especially for textile industries (study I) and steel mills (study V), for instance, that need to be changed or updated. It is better to advise workers to keep themselves healthy and safe from dangerous operations, especially when strenuous tasks are concerned (study III–V), than encouraged them to report occupational problems. An in-plant service system may be beneficial for some industries (study I & V) in providing environmental monitoring, and safety and hygiene surveillance for other type of factories (study II). It should, however, start at the grass-roots level because workers in SMEs are generally less educated or semi-experienced and may not be easily convinced of the need for workplace improvement. Most importantly, the workplace intervention program will be successful if FO, EA & UL are non-resistant to provide health, safety and hygiene measures or any ergonomic changes in workplace layout.

For workplace intervention, it is also important to grasp the possibilities of how ‘team spirit’ through group work initiative as well as self-initiative spirit can help less educated or inexperienced people work nicely, and how to include them constructively in harmony with health, hygiene and safety conception as well as production objectives. In this regard, Westlander et al. (1993) expressed concerns on general strategies for intervention studies and reserach.

OHS/ergonomics could be tailored with intervening factors in shift work that boost productivity through integrating various local factors (study VII). In this regard, few scientists (Sekimpi 1992, Sakari 1995) illustrated prerequisites for successful health and safety measures in DCs. Workplace intervention should, however, be embodied in national regulations on OHS/ergonomics, which FO, EA and UL have a responsibility to implement WRLL in this region. Since the methods of operation in SMEs are both expeditious and flexible in many DCs, and therefore, possible ways to improve the working environment are:

• suspension and removal of hazardous activity or non-hygienic conditions at all levels

• simplification and/or change of layout, and implementation of ergonomic measures

• greater scrutiny of work methods, particularly from the grass root level

• recognition of workers’ labour, social support and allowing welfare or fringe benefits

• setting up a health and safety commission under the auspices of a neutral watchdog body, the national health and safety council (NHSC)

• revising labour law, updating work regulation, and enacting labour legislation

• articulating a consolidated structure for regulating labour law and legislatory issues