Stephan Klenzmann is a member of the employee representative committee at SMS Group, a machine plant supplier for the steel industry. In this capacity, he promotes occupational safety and health within the group. He is a member of the Governing Committee of the German Social Accident Insurance Institution for the woodworking and metalworking industries (BGHM) and is active in KAN, in both cases representing employees’ interests.
What factors have had the greatest impact upon the safety and health of workers at work in recent years?
We’ve seen an increase in the introduction of international management systems and standards-based certifications. These impact upon many areas of preventive activity in the safety and health of workers at work. For some German companies, this may impair efficiency, since established structures and procedures are already in place that are not always consistent with the certification requirements. At the same time, these systems also offer opportunities, for example when occupational safety and health activity is integrated into management structures. Supervision of these processes by parties to co-determination is conducive to their being implemented successfully in the interests of occupational safety and health.
A major challenge presented by the certifications, which are often valid internationally, is their interface to the regulations concerning occupational safety and health, opportunities for participation and rights to co-determination, which differ from country to country. The certifications must not be detrimental to the comparatively high level of protection here in Germany and the participative processes by which the regulations are created. In particular, Germany’s dual occupational safety and health system is characterised by participation of the social partners in the creation of regulations, whether in the state committees of the Ministry of Labour (BMAS), or in the structures of the German Social Accident Insurance Institutions, in which equal rights of employers and employees are enshrined. Participation in this form is not assured in standardisation activity.
“Cutting red tape” has become a catchphrase. What’s your opinion of this development?
With its initiative to reduce bureaucracy, the BMAS aims to make the regulation of occupational safety and health more efficient and digital. The purpose is to develop practical solutions for SMEs and to relieve the burden on trade and industry as a whole. We mustn’t make the mistake, though, of viewing functions such as safety delegates and external company coordinators – functions which are now being called into question – as “red tape”. These functions guarantee indispensable protection for workers.
Responsibility for occupational safety and health lies with the employer. Employers can’t be everywhere at once, though, or aware of all relevant hazards. They therefore rely on the support of persons appointed for the purpose. Examples are safety delegates and external company coordinators. Persons performing these roles ensure that legal requirements and company rules are observed. These persons’ activity is modest, but effective.
A case can be made in many areas for cutting red tape. However, this must be planned conscientiously and with the involvement of the social partners. Besides posing a risk to workers, overly hasty measures increase costs to companies in the long term. The common goal of all parties involved must continue to be to reduce occupational accidents and working days lost due to illness. Measures to reduce bureaucracy must therefore never be implemented at the expense of safety levels.
This level of safety is also guaranteed by the autonomy of the German Social Accident Insurance Institutions, which is enshrined in Volume VII of the German Social Code and ensures that provisions are geared to the situation in the field. This autonomy, and the dual occupational safety and health system in Germany, must be preserved, and not eroded under the pretext of “cutting red tape”. DGUV Regulations, for example, are the responsibility of the autonomous administration, comprising representatives of employers and insured individuals, and not of the BMAS.
What is the function of external company coordinators, and why are they indispensable for the safety and health of workers at work?
Levels of occupational safety and health have improved in many companies. At the same time, though, it’s increasingly common for employees of several companies to be working on the same company site, and occupational accidents particularly often affect the employees of external companies or occur where different companies interact.
External company coordinators play a crucial role in assuring the safety and health of workers at work. They identify and assess risks arising at points of contact between different companies, initiate suitable health and safety measures in consultation with the customer and the external companies, and coordinate implementation of these measures. The coordinators also provide assistance with preparing risk assessments for shared work areas. They have special authority to monitor working conditions and ensure that the safety regulations are being observed. Rather than eliminating these coordinators, it would be far more advantageous to strengthen their function and regulate it clearly, thereby ensuring that “cutting red tape” doesn’t ultimately lead to a reduction in the level of protection in the workplace.