Manganese—A Public Health Concern: Its Relevance for Occupational Health and Safety Policy and Regulation in South Africa

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mavis Ann Hermanus
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Public Health Concern ◽  
Safety Policy

Drawing the Line between Dismissal for Alcoholism (Incapacity) and Dismissal for Drunkenness (Misconduct). Are the Boni Mores Compromised?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. 57-63
Author(s):  
Thandekile Phulu
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Social Justice ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
Labour Practice ◽  
The Republic

In South Africa employees are protected by various pieces of legislation. Section 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 provides for a right to fair labour practice. In its preamble the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (hereafter referred to as the LRA) states that the purpose of the Act is to advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and democratisation of the workplace. The LRA also states that one of its objectives is to give effect to and regulate the fundamental rights conferred by section 27 of the Constitution. The Occupational Health and Safety Act as amended by the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act 181 of 1993 provides for the health and safety of persons at work and for the health and safety of persons in connection with the use of plant and machinery. The LRA provides for dismissal for incapacity and dismissals for misconduct. It also differentiates between the two. The LRA provides for both substantive and procedural fairness when dismissing an employee for incapacity and misconduct. This paper will examine the rationale behind differentiating between dismissal for drunkenness and dismissal for alcoholism.

scholarly journals 1.E. Workshop: Comparative Public Health: Politics, science, and professionalism

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Occupational Health ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Occupational Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Health Systems

Abstract Look around EUPHA, or any other public health conference. Public health is difficult to define, in theory and in practice. Its boundaries are all blurred, whether with medicine, schools, environmental protection or workplace safety inspectorates. Too often, we overstate the similarities between public health systems among countries. Efforts to promote networks, good practice, and even basic coordination have been undermined for decades by misunderstandings born of different educational, organizational, financial and political systems. The lack of comparison, and comparative political analysis in particular, also means that countries can have very similar debates about the proper nature and scope of public health, an about who is to blame for deficiencies, without awareness of when they are distinctive and when they are actually part of larger trends. This project aims to identify and explain variation in the scope and organization of public health systems in selected high-income countries. Based on a formalized comparative historical analysis of Austria, France, Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States, researchers in the study first mapped the various axes of divergence: workforce composition, organization, levels of government, relationship to medicine, and the extent to which public health encompassed adjacent areas such as environmental health and occupational health and safety. For each country we then followed both case studies (communicable disease control including vaccines, HIV/AIDS, tobacco control, diet and nutrition, occupational health and safety) as well as the legislative history of the public health field in order to identify its changing organization and scope. It then identifies the relative role of historical legacies, changing science, burden of disease and politics in explaining patterns of both divergence and convergence. This workshop presents four country specific case studies (France, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States) that identify the most important forms of variation and the political, scientific and professional drivers of convergence and divergence. Key messages Political organization and scope as images of public health are grossly under-researched and nonexistent in a comparative nature. Understanding the scope and organization of public health in different countries will permit better lesson-drawing and identification of relevant and effective levers of change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document