|
When every three and a half minutes somebody in the European Union dies from work-related causes it seems reasonable to think that something needs to be done. When more than one out of every four workers is affected by work related stress we know that European Governments, Agencies, Trade Unions and Associations should be doing something. And we, people working on the Employee Assistance Programs business know some of the things that we can do to help.
My question is whether all these organizations at the European level know who we are and what we do.
There is a strong business case for tackling poor mental health at work. Absenteeism, reduced productivity and premature withdrawal from work affect competitiveness and increase costs. There is also a case at the individual level as a healthy life with good self esteem and a good equilibrium between work and life makes people healthy and more productive. But there is also a case from the high institutions in our governments. After all early retirement and exclusion from work due to depression, stress and drug consumption also have an effect on social welfare benefits, on societal relationships and countries’ economies. The porpoise of this presentation at the EAP Annual Conference 2009 was to present data that summarized the work done by all European government to tackle psychosocial stressors /mental health at work. (The table can be found on our web page). The conclusion was that, we, as providers of EAP services have not done much to let our own governments and institutions know that we exist as a resource to help employees. With important mental health related costs in the EU, we can make a case for companies to invest on EAP programs.
In conclusion, the data summarizes the results of EU approaches to combat psychosocial risks. It looks at the legislation that has followed the European Frameworks of OSH since 1989, the guidelines, initiatives and campaigns such as the European week “Working on Stress” on 2002. It looks at how most countries have implemented the guidelines in a “soft” manner that suggests rather than forces companies to prevent psychosocial stressors such as stress/anxiety or even violence and harassment at work. The implementation of the Framework Agreement on Work Related Stress (2004) has been uneven, mostly soft with guidelines and recommendations and with only the Czech Republic transposing the agreement into legislation. The same has happened with the Framework agreement on Harassment and Violence which started in 2007 and is still going on. A Survey by Prima-EF Stakeholder suggests that only 34% of the stakeholders in EU27 consider the directives of OSH to be effective for psychosocial risk management. The problems that most institutions and governments in Europe have found include the low prioritization of psychosocial issues, issues that are perceived as too complex to deal with.
The overall impact of OSH legislation has however increased dialogue on psychosocial risks especially among trade unions and social associations, it has planted a seed that needs to be strengthened and we, EAP providers, have to collaborate on that implementation. The combined approach of government activities and social dialogue seem promising at suggesting that psychosocial factors on the job need to be addressed and that EAP providers are part of that solution. Let us push for law and policy to prevent Mental Health Problems on the job.
For EAEF members: If you are interested to know more about psychosocial legislation in Europe, please find the full research made by Miguel Cristobal on the EAEF website (member’s only section) Research_on_European_Work_Policies.xls |
