https://www.mdu.se/

mdu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Resilience Within a Weaker Work Environment System— The Position and Influence of Swedish Safety Representatives
Mälardalen University, School of Business, Society and Engineering, Industrial Economics and Organisation.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7156-5020
2016 (English)In: Safety or Profit?: International Studies in Governance, Change and the Work Environment / [ed] David Walters; Theo Nichols, Taylor and Francis , 2016, p. 51-70Chapter in book (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This chapter describes and discusses the situation of Swedish safety representatives (SRs) with respect to formal rights and position, power balance and influence, and the social construction of risks and solutions. It is prefaced by a short account of the development of the Swedish work environment (WE) system and how recent economic and political changes may have affected this and the position of safety reps. An underlying question is, Why do safety reps refrain from fully using their rights and opportunities to act against risk at work? They may pursue any serious risk as much as is needed. And work environment surveys indicate widespread and serious risks at work that the SRs (and others) could require employers to improve (AV, 2010). The risks are estimated to cause at least 1,000 fatalities per year, but possibly many more (Järvholm, 2010). Despite this, in 2006, only 3% of the blue collar SRs in the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) survey had used their right to appeal to the labor inspectorate during the previous 3 years (Gellerstedt, 2007: 49-50). Case studies also indicate that safety reps do not use all of their rights to pursue issues they find important (e.g., Frick, 1994; Frick and Forsberg, 2010). To at least somewhat understand the difference between theoretical and real safety rep influence, we have to look not only to their formal position but also to their labor-market power and how risks are constructed and understood at the workplace; and how these factors have changed in the Swedish labor market. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor and Francis , 2016. p. 51-70
National Category
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mdh:diva-55432Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85108755007ISBN: 9781315229751 (electronic)ISBN: 9780895038180 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mdh-55432DiVA, id: diva2:1579091
Available from: 2021-07-08 Created: 2021-07-08 Last updated: 2021-07-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Scopus

Authority records

Eklinder-Frick, Jens

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Eklinder-Frick, Jens
By organisation
Industrial Economics and Organisation
Production Engineering, Human Work Science and Ergonomics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 56 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf