The Incidence Of Occupational Diseases Is High &Nbsp; 200 Million, How To Protect Occupational Health Of Workers?

According to the data released by the Ministry of health, there are about 1600 enterprises in China with toxic and harmful workplaces. The total number of workers suffering from occupational hazards is about 200 million. In June 15, 2011, the sixty-fourth NPC chairman of the eleven National People's Congress recommended that the draft amendment to the occupational disease prevention act be first considered, and actively cope with the high incidence of occupational diseases and the plight of the current occupational disease prevention law to protect workers from fatigue.

The performance appraisal mechanism is imperfect and lacks seriously. Occupational Diseases Prevention consciousness

It is reported that in recent years, China's annual economic losses caused by industrial accidents and occupational diseases to the state amount to more than 200 billion yuan, accounting for about 2.5% of GDP. In international trade, export losses caused by anti-dumping measures due to labor standards (including labor protection conditions) are even more difficult to estimate.

The health and economic losses caused by the vast number of labourers in the process of labor production have not been fully valued. For a long time, local development performance evaluation targets mainly reflect the economic volume and growth rate, while the labor cost paid for the pursuit of total economic output has not been included.

Because occupational diseases are different from industrial accidents, except for acute occupational poisoning, the incubation period is long, and most of them will not happen in those years. For example, the duration of pneumoconiosis is relatively long, and the majority of patients can be exposed to dust for more than 10 years. Therefore, the effect of government regulation may be reflected in the tenure of the successor, and this index is often ignored because it is not included in the performance appraisal.

It is precisely because of the assessment mechanism problems that China's current occupational disease prevention and control Government regulation Resource input and enforcement efforts in all aspects such as preventive measures and treatment support are seriously inadequate. Even some local governments, in order to attract foreign investment, let the enterprises without occupational disease hazards start up and put into operation, obstruct normal occupational health supervision and monitoring during the operation of enterprises, interfere in the diagnosis of occupational diseases, and employ the means of covering, blocking and dragging in the event of occupational diseases. The above actions not only cause various malpractices in the field of occupational disease prevention, but also greatly aggravate social contradictions.

The occupational disease prevention and control system in the planned economy era has been seriously divorced from reality.

The current system of occupational disease prevention and control in China is actually based on the state-owned enterprises in the planned economy era. With the transformation of China's economy into a market economy and the rapid development of non-public enterprises, the source and nature of occupational disease workers are changing.

Huang Leping, director of the Beijing Yi Lian labor law assistance and Research Center, told the half moon reporter that in 2011, the center's occupational disease research report showed that 66.7% of the 172 workers surveyed were from private enterprises, 8.2% from foreign enterprises, and only 21.4% from state-owned enterprises.

Many private enterprises Small scale There are basically no occupational disease protection facilities and protective supplies. The production environment is poor, production technology is backward, toxic and hazardous substances are seriously exceeded, and labor contracts are often not signed with workers, denying labor relations. Many private units refuse to provide relevant information in the process of occupational disease diagnosis, and often avoid the liability of compensation by canceling the form of an enterprise.

Great changes have taken place in macro labor relations, but our occupational disease prevention system has not been adjusted in time. Huang Leping pointed out that, in terms of prevention, the lack of training and supervision of private enterprises led to a low rate of physical examination for workers and less than 1% of the supervision and inspection of employers. In terms of diagnosis, workers need to provide a large number of relevant materials such as occupation history, many private enterprises refuse to offer, but the law does not impose any punitive provisions. In the process of applying for diagnosis, some occupational disease diagnosis agencies often require the employer to make a diagnosis application, or the employer leads the laborers to make a diagnosis application before accepting it. In terms of compensation, the workers with occupational diseases have to undergo very complicated procedures, and the time is very long. The identification of labor relations is especially difficult in the private sector.

China's safety supervision and labor supervision departments have not yet responded to this. There is no effective administrative record for employment in the occupational hazards industry, and the administrative investigation on labor relations is not enough. This further creates difficulties in diagnosis and compensation for occupational diseases.

It is difficult for occupational disease workers to become vulnerable groups.

The current occupational disease diagnosis system requires enterprises to testify against their own crimes, and it also leads to difficulties in preparing materials for employees. Huang Leping said that at present, the material history of occupational history, the history of occupational disease exposure, the investigation and evaluation of site hazards, and the results of clinical and auxiliary examinations are all in the hands of employers. Employers often refuse to provide relevant information. According to the occupational disease research report, 48% of the workers with occupational diseases were rejected by occupational disease diagnosis institutions because of incomplete materials.

In the process of safeguarding rights, the cumbersome program design has further increased the cost of safeguarding rights of workers with occupational diseases, and even alienated them as a sharp weapon for employers to shirk their responsibilities or drag down workers with occupational diseases. Under the current occupational disease prevention and control system, laborers can only be passive rights protection, claiming monetary compensation when the damage occurs, but they can not effectively counteract the illegal activities of employers in the production process.

Although the law also stipulates the right to prosecute and Sue, workers can refuse dangerous operations or even rescind labor contracts, but these are not positive labor rights. Laborers are incapable and have no motivation to fight against violations of occupational disease laws. Specifically, on the one hand, the right of workers in the occupational disease prevention law can not form an effective deterrent to the employing units; on the other hand, the workers lack the mechanism of collective consultation in occupational health, so they can not engage in a truly equal dialogue with the employing units.

The uncertainty of the regulatory body brings great difficulties to the occupational health supervision, and also causes the departments concerned to shuffle the responsibility of supervision in practice. The law on prevention and control of occupational diseases stipulates that the health administrative department is responsible for the supervision of occupational disease prevention and control. The uncertainty of the regulatory body makes the workers of occupational diseases at a loss. According to the survey results of Yi Lian occupational disease, about 1/4 of occupational disease patients seek help from the health administration department, while those who seek help from the safety supervision department are less than 1/8. Only 7.6% of the health sector recipients were rescued, and the proportion of those receiving security supervision departments was lower than 2.3%.

The construction of occupational disease prevention system is seriously inadequate, and occupational health standards need to be improved.

In addition to the weak rights of workers and the absence of supervision, another important reason is that China has invested too little in the occupational disease prevention system. Due to the problem of input, there is a serious shortage of occupational disease prevention and control teams in China. The occupational health prevention and control institutions set up by the health sector show a shrinking trend.

At present, there are only 12 provincial independent occupational disease prevention and treatment centers in China. Most of the municipal occupational disease prevention and control institutions have been merged into the Centers for Disease Control and prevention, and there are fewer occupational disease prevention and control personnel at the county level. Taking Guangdong province with relatively good occupational health background as an example, on average, there are only 0.68 occupational health surveillance personnel and 2.18 occupational health technical service personnel per 10000 occupational hazards. According to the Ministry of health statistics, in 2009, occupational health prevention and control institutions at all levels were included in the control of 12192032 people, and only 6.1% of the 200 million occupational exposure hazards were included in the monitoring.

Since the implementation of the "occupational disease prevention law", the construction of occupational health standard system in China has made great progress, but it still can not meet the actual needs. At present, the occupational disease identification standard tends to be rigid, and the definition of occupational disease list falls behind the needs of occupational disease prevention and control. With the continuous introduction of new technologies and new technologies, new occupational hazards are emerging, and occupational diseases are increasing. However, the occupational disease catalogue has not been adjusted, supplemented and published in real time according to the actual situation. (half moon on the inside edition, 2011 seventh issue, reporter Xu Zhongke)

Related links

In June 27th this year, the draft amendment to the occupational disease prevention law, which was first considered by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, was revised. The draft stipulates that medical institutions that meet the relevant conditions can obtain occupational disease diagnosis qualification, and occupational disease diagnosis institutions shall not refuse workers' requirements for occupational disease diagnosis.

In view of the difficulty in proving evidence, the draft amendment has also been revised in a targeted way. On the one hand, the employer should provide truthful information on the history of occupational disease and the history of occupational disease exposure, and the detection results of occupational hazards in workplaces. On the other hand, it will increase the legal liability of employers in violation of the regulations, hide, destroy or not provide the necessary information for diagnosis and identification of occupational diseases. If the circumstances are serious, they will be ordered to stop operations that cause occupational hazards, or even be ordered to close.

The draft amendment also stipulates that in the process of occupational disease diagnosis and appraisal, the employer does not provide data on the occupational hazard detection results in the workplace. The occupational disease diagnosis institution should combine the clinical manifestations of workers, the results of auxiliary examinations, the history of occupational history of workers, the history of occupational disease exposure, and refer to the self-report of workers. In addition, the draft amendment further clarifies the labor arbitration procedure involved in the diagnosis of occupational diseases, so that the system can be tilted to protect the rights and interests of workers.