English version - Fit for Work Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MSDs and individuals 76 Cont. Kaizen has often been described as ‘continuous’, ‘incremental in nature’ and ‘participative’. It is closely associated to the notions of quality circles (QCs) and TQM, but is not identical to them. In the 1950s, the concept of TQC (total quality control) substituted the earlier concept of statistical quality control (SQC) in Japan. TQC included company-wide activities and education in quality control (QC), QC circles and audits, and promotion of quality management principles. By 1968 the elements of TQC management had been outlined by one of the fathers of TQC in Japan – Kaoru Ishikawa. These include: • Quality comes first, not short-term profits; • The customer comes first, not the producer; • Customers are the next process with no organisational barriers; • Decisions are based on facts and data; • Management is participatory and respectful of all employees; and • Management is driven by cross-functional committees covering product planning, product design, production planning, purchasing, manufacturing, sales, and distribution. (Pecht and BSoulton, 1995) Participatory training programmes are being increasingly implemented in Asia to support grassroots initiatives in informal economy workplaces. These are devised to improve safety, health and working conditions and are usually based on a set of simple principles: ease of application and use of low-cost, locally available materials. Common actions taken in informal economy workplaces include clear transport routes, improved workstations for better work posture, machine guards, safer handling of hazardous substances, and basic welfare needs such as safe drinking water and sanitary toilets. Easy-to-apply training tools are used throughout the programmes (Kawakami, 2007). An example of such a training programme is WIND (Work Improvement in Neighbourhood Development), designed to improve the health and safety of farmers. It was developed by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and was based on the successful example of the WISE (Work Improvement in Small Enterprises) training programme, which assisted participating small enterprises in improving productivity and working conditions. The WISE methods rely fully on self-help of owners and workers in local small-scale enterprises rather than on a classroom-style lectures, and enable the participants to improve their working conditions immediately. WISE trainers should serve as facilitators to provide concrete support for existing self-help efforts towards workplace improvement. Cont. Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market
7.4 Recommendations for individuals Cont. The main functions of the trainers are to: • Collect good local examples; • Encourage visible achievements; • Convince managers that improvement of working conditions is important; • Facilitate learning-by-doing experiences; • Stimulate exchange of practical experience; • Promote workers’ active involvement. MSDs and individuals The WIND programme was born out of the active participation of farmers in the Mekong Delta area of Vietnam in 1995. The programme’s inspiring achievements in Vietnam allowed it to spread into neighbouring counties like Cambodia and Thailand, and later to Central Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America. The programme is based on participatory training methods executed in a systematic manner. Methods include: farm visits, checklist exercise, group discussions by farmers, best practice picture examples, etc. The programme is usually run in the form of a short-term workshop (1-2 days) or a series of mini-workshops, and allows farmers to understand health and safety risks, as well as practical, low-cost solutions. Equal participation of women and men is actively promoted (Kawakami, Khai and Kogi, 2009). As Waddell and Burton (2006b) have argued, the goal of the biomedical model is to relieve symptoms, whereas the goals of clinical management informed by the biopsychosocial model – especially in occupational settings – should be to control symptoms and restore function. This suggests that employers play a role in the ‘social’ aspect of the biopsychosocial model, and that employers’ actions can make a difference in the health outcomes of individuals with MSDs. Individuals must play an active part in the management of their condition. Many people feel that their health condition is controlling their lives at home and at work. However, there are many ways to learn about your condition, learn how to recognise patterns in pain or fatigue and how to minimise the condition’s impact on functioning and well-being. It has been found that people with who actively manage their condition recover earlier than those who catastrophise their disease. For example, RA patients receiving anti-TNF therapy report higher employability after treatment. Overall, the use of TNF inhibitors improves self- Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Japanese Labour Market 77
Page 1:
Fit For Work? Musculoskeletal Disor
Page 4 and 5:
Contents 4 1. Executive summary 6 2
Page 6 and 7:
1. Executive summary 6 The ‘Fit f
Page 8 and 9:
Executive summary 8 the data that i
Page 10 and 11:
2. Introduction 10 2.1 The global b
Page 12 and 13:
Introduction 12 2.3 International c
Page 14 and 15:
Introduction 14 2.5 Structure of th
Page 16 and 17:
Work and MSDs in Japan 16 Figure 3.
Page 18 and 19:
Work and MSDs in Japan 18 3.2 Defin
Page 20 and 21:
Work and MSDs in Japan 20 3.3 The i
Page 22 and 23:
Work and MSDs in Japan 22 average t
Page 24 and 25:
Work and MSDs in Japan 24 RA affect
Page 26 and 27: Work and MSDs in Japan 26 3.3.4 Spo
Page 28 and 29: Work and MSDs in Japan 28 3.4 Summa
Page 30 and 31: MSDs and government 30 4.2 MSDs: Po
Page 32 and 33: MSDs and government 32 of good heal
Page 34 and 35: MSDs and government 34 Figure 4.1.
Page 36 and 37: MSDs and government 36 deliver bett
Page 38 and 39: 5. MSDs and health care professiona
Page 40 and 41: MSDs and health care professionals
Page 50 and 51: 6. MSDs and employers 50 6.1 Costs
Page 52 and 53: MSDs and employers 52 6.2 The role
Page 54 and 55: MSDs and employers 54 Occupational
Page 56 and 57: MSDs and employers 56 The most freq
Page 58 and 59: MSDs and employers 58 levels of pai
Page 60 and 61: MSDs and employers 60 • Modified
Page 62 and 63: MSDs and employers 62 Box 2. Case s
Page 64 and 65: MSDs and employers 64 lower the mor
Page 66 and 67: 7. MSDs and individuals 66 7.1 Impa
Page 68 and 69: MSDs and individuals 68 Figure 7.1.
Page 70 and 71: MSDs and individuals 70 7.2 MSDs: I
Page 72 and 73: MSDs and individuals 72 and other h
Page 74 and 75: MSDs and individuals 74 Figure 7.4.
Page 78 and 79: MSDs and individuals 78 reported wo
Page 80 and 81: Conclusions and recommendations 80
Page 82 and 83: References 82 American Chamber of C
Page 84 and 85: References 84 Dagfinrud, H., Mengsh
Page 86 and 87: References 86 Hori, Y., Hoshino, J.
Page 88 and 89: References 88 Matsudaira, K., Hara,
Page 90 and 91: References 90 Rudwaleit, M., Gooch,
Page 92 and 93: References 92 Young, A., Dixey, J.,
Page 94 and 95: Appendix 2: Fit Note Sample 94 Sour
Page 96 and 97: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 96 So
Page 98 and 99: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 98 So
Page 100 and 101: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid 100 O
Page 102 and 103: Appendix 3: Benchmarking grid Refer
Page 104: We provide: Research Advisory Consu
show all

English version - Fit for Work Europe

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?