Occupational Health and Safety Surveillance of Temporary Workers in Washington State Michael Foley SHARP Washington State Department of Labor and Industries CDC/NIOSH Grant #U60OH008487-6
Growth of Contingency Disarticulation/specialization of enterprise functions Reduction in transactions costs to use markets instead of own employees to supply non-core functions Protect investment in core workers; use flexible peripheral workers to absorb fluctuations in market conditions Shift payroll admin, recruitment, screening, training, WC and unemployment insurance costs to outside entities.
Limitations of administrative data for contingent workers SOII/OSHA 300: Agency temps not identifiable on OSHA 300 forms Undercounts of agency temps on OSHA logs In WA only 36% of host employers knew they were responsible for recording injuries to temp workers on own log Most equated responsibility for recording injury on OSHA log with liability for WC claim Underrepresentation of workers not in scope of statute Self-employed independent contractors; seasonal workers on small farms
Limitations of administrative data for contingent workers Workers Compensation Must be a covered employee Incentive to misclassify as independent contractor Covered by outside entity Lack of data on host employer where injury occurred Disincentives to report injuries Difference between temporary and permanent workers? Variation across states in WC programs limits utility
Workers Compensation in Washington State Eligibility, coverage and benefits vary significantly across states Features: mandatory coverage, exclusive state fund, employers must either purchase from State or self-insure 1. Benefits provided waiting period, wages, 1 st visit 2. Choice of provider 3. Premium payment hours vs. wages, no minimum policy 4. Risk classification Washington/NCCI 5. Employee payment of % of premium 6. Claim free discount; retrospective rating program
Focus on Temporary Help Supply 1. Expanding beyond traditional industries 1. Highly pro-cyclical. 2. Underrepresented/underreported in SOII 3. Collects several potential risk factors for injury 1. Youth 2. Tenure 3. Training/supervision 4. Divided employer incentives 5. Precarity 4. Industry/occupation where temporary workers are injured is identifiable in WA state workers compensation data
Identifying Temporary Agency Workers in WA Workers Compensation 1. Washington Risk Classification System - a. Of 316 WA risk classes, 16 reserved for temporary work temporary risk classes defined by type of work performed b. Employers pay premium based on hours worked by risk class (internal denominator for injury rate estimate) c. Claim records allow identification by risk class and occupation case matching.
THS Employment Growth, 1989-2007
THS Employment Growth, 1994-2012
THS Growth by Risk Class
Overall Rate Ratio=1.86
Injured Worker Interviews 1. Claimants selected within first month after claim opening Completed 423 interviews (193 temps, 230 permanent) 2. Case-control matching by risk class, age, gender and tenure 122 matched sets with at least one pair. 3. Telephone interview: subjects covered tasks performed; hazards faced pre-screening for experience with job duties level of supervision received safety training and equipment provided how best to deliver educational materials.
Hazard exposures
Pre-assignment screening
Safety training
Safety Training
Safety training
Safety equipment
Supervision
Safety management
Other measures About 28% of temps had experienced a significant change of job assignment upon arrival at job site. Over half said this happened frequently. Over half said they did not feel able to refuse. About 63% of temps felt they had no control over their work assignments or schedule About half of permanent workers also said this. Other risk factors: Greater mental exhaustion at end of workday More often working more than seven days in a row
Other measures (continued) No significant differences found for: Physical exhaustion Current health/health prior to injury Frequency of overtime Knowledge of rights to workers compensation About 64% of both groups did not know how to file a claim Temp workforce is more culturally diverse. About 35% identify as Hispanic/Latino vs 24% for permanent workers
Agency Interviews Agencies conduct site inspections and assess PPE needs before contract. Non-fixed sites? Most think temp work is more hazardous Provide only general training Rely on host employer to provide more specialized training Growing fraction of temp-to-hire reporting effect? Market pressures lead to price competition between agencies, lack of leverage with host employers to improve safety practices.
Summary What would the data show if we could interview all injured temp workers? Temps report similar levels of hazard exposure as do permanent workers. Lack of pre-assignment experience screening; infrequent and inadequate safety training and lack of ability to refuse assignments. Cultural diversity of temp workforce. Agencies pressured to reduce costs weakened oversight? Precarity diffusing beyond the formal temp sector
Recommendations Identify injuries to temporary workers on OSHA logs Improve training of host employers to correctly record injuries to temporary workers they supervise Improve screening/training of temporary workers Earlier training of all new workers Clarify responsibilities of agencies and hosts Significant levels of precarity have diffused beyond the contingent sector.
Questions and comments? Michael Foley Washington State Department of Labor and Industries folm235@lni.wa.gov