APPROACHES TO THE METHOD OF BUILDING A HYGIENE, SANITARY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In transport, ensuring safe conditions and labor protection are of particular importance, as the lives ofpassengers and the safety of rail transport depend on the health of workers in this industry. The incidence of temporarydisability, occupational and chronic morbidity of employees of a number of transport professions have been studied.This assessment of diseases depending on age and length of service according to medical examination from thestandpoint of evidence-based medicine, which revealed the cause of increased morbidity associated with adverseworking conditions and assess the degree of its professional conditionality. It is established that the leading harmfulinfluences in the organization of work of railway transport workers are noise, vibration, nervous and emotional stressand a nuфmber of other factors. Studies have shown that prolonged and repeated exposure to factors of the productionenvironment leads to a violation of adaptive mechanisms, and their failure, contributes to pathological processes in thebody. On the basis of the conducted research the concept of interaction of object with hygiene and sanitation at theenterprise and model of integrated management of object as ecological and economic system is formulated. In theprocess of research the model of the organization of management of health of workers which organically fits into modelof conceptual balanced interaction of the enterprise with environment is developed. This model provides for the primaryprevention of diseases, both occupational and occupational, and is a tool that allows you to maintain and strengthen thehealth of workers through activities such as prevention of the causes of risk factors.

Analysis of the possibilities of individual admission to train work of employees of locomotive crew workers after high-tech medical interventions: on the need to change regulatory legal acts

Introduction. JSC "Russian Railways" monitors morbidity and changes in the health status of employees, including after the use of high-tech assistance methods (radiofrequency ablation, joint replacement, etc.). In some cases, JSC "Russian Railways made decisions on individual admission to training work of persons who have undergone such high-tech interventions, even if there are medical contraindications to work. The study aims to learn the feasibility of individual admission to work of train personnel after high-tech medical care. Furthermore, it makes the professional longevity of railway transport workers. Materials and methods. We analyzed the information for 2015-2020 about the identified medical contraindications in workers directly related to training traffic and shunting work, with rhythm and conduction disorders, surgical diseases, and lesions of large joints, including those aimed at high-tech assistance. In addition, the researchers evaluated the clinical and economic efficiency of their admission to work. Results. More than 70% of employees after radiofrequency ablation and joint replacement can return to train workers, which has brought an indirect economic effect of at least 150 million rubles over six years. It is a prerequisite for the revision of existing regulatory documents. Conclusions: The use of high-tech treatment methods makes it possible to prolong professional longevity through individual admission to train employees of the group of machinists, drivers, and their assistants. The research showed an indirect economic effect for the railway industry for at least 150 million rubles over six years, which is the basis for changing medical expert approaches and medical contraindications to work directly related to training traffic.

Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹ "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage." This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations. This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims: 1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation; 2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation; 3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and 4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context. The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario. This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject. ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047. ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice. ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980). ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98. ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

Criminalisation of seafarers - A New Zealand perspective

<p>Participants and observers of the maritime industry have been claiming a trend internationally towards criminalising the actions of seafarers in modern years. This trend has been apparent since the mid-20th century and has many vocal industry participants declaring that it is disturbing and negatively impacts the maritime industry as a whole, particularly when the blame of large-scale pollution events are placed on seafarers themselves. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (“ITWF”) highlights these industry concerns:¹ "In the modern maritime industry, reduced crews are expected to affect fast turnarounds and take ever greater responsibility for maritime security and pollution prevention. On the one hand they are subject to pressure from the company to remain economically competitive at all costs. On the other hand they face the threat of heavy-handed sanctions by States eager to find scapegoats for politically sensitive cases involving environmental damage." This paper looks at international discourse on this trend and examines whether it is reflected in New Zealand (“NZ”) by focusing on the statutory reality of the increasing criminalisation thesis. This maritime industry is largely regulated by the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“MTA”). However, as with all jurisdictions, maritime specific laws do not exist in a vacuum. The MTA operates alongside maritime rules; the Crimes Act 1961; the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”); anti-terrorism measures; health and safety legislation; employee rights; human rights; and international obligations. This research paper analyses the NZ dimension in the context of this international discussion. This paper has four main aims: 1) To isolate the areas where industry participants believe there is a trend towards greater criminalisation; 2) To analyse legislative and policy developments in NZ, focusing on the MTA and earlier legislation; 3) Determine whether NZ is following the international trend towards increased criminalisation of seafarers; and 4) Highlight infamous cases giving rise to liability in this area and hypothetically applies them to the NZ context. The bulk of this paper focuses on the second aim above: Part IV identifies five areas of criminal responsibility. Every maritime offence and crime in NZ legislation has been examined.² Part V is a forecasting exercise where I apply the facts of four international cases into the NZ framework and examine a ‘worse case’ scenario. This paper focuses on offences applicable only to seafarers (including masters) of merchant ships, in the course of their professional duties. There are sundry offences in NZ law which apply to “every person” but this paper only examines these in the context of seafarers’ professional duties. For example, offences under the recent legislation to combat piracy and terrorism through policing and border control – Maritime Crimes Act 1999 and Maritime Security Act 2004 – are outside the scope of this paper though both Acts are important pieces of legislation for NZ international obligations.³ I do not examine offences relating to harbour-masters; owners or employers of seafarers; warships or defence force members; port operators or facilities; pleasure craft; fishing boats; search and rescue operators; wrecks; nor marine structures and operations.⁴ Further, the paper does not look at the civil penalties for the same activities as examined in the criminal context, liability under the Maritime Insurance Act 1908, or the delegated authority of Maritime New Zealand (“MNZ”).⁵ This scope has been chosen due to the parallel international discussion and concerns with this subject. ¹ International Transport Workers’ Federation “Out of sight, out of mind: Seafarers, Fishers and Human Rights” June 2006 at 29. Challengers assert is that the “criminalisation of accidental pollution may discourage feedback regarding incidents, failures, and even accidents and so inhibit their prevention” as well as the increasingly employment costs that such criminal sanctions trigger: see Kyriaki Mitroussi “Employment of seafarers in the EU context: Challenges and opportunities” (2008) 32 Marine Policy at 1047. ² For ease of discussion, Part IV divides these areas into (1) health and safety offences (including pollution and hazardous cargo situations); (2) emergency situations, collisions or accidents; (3) employment rights and obligations; (4) financial and regulatory responsibilities; and (5) obligations involving the administration of justice. ³ See International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1184 UNTS 1185 (opened for signature 1 November 1974, entered into force 25 May 1980). ⁴ See sections 31(4) and 71(1) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 [hereinafter referred to as the “MTA”]; Maritime New Zealand v Page [2013] DCR 102; and Sellers v Maritime Safety (5 November 1998) CA104/98. ⁵ See Part 25 of the MTA.</p>

COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown: Livelihood Struggles and Coping Experiences of Precarious Migrant Construction and Transport Workers in Awka, Anambra State, Nigeria

COVID-19 Pandemic has affected different categories of workers in diverse ways. The paper seeks to interrogate the livelihood challenges of those in precarious employment with a focus on migrant construction and transport workers in Awka during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. The paper explores the coping strategies adopted by these urban poor in the face of the severe shutdown and abrupt termination of their marginal means of livelihood by the State and National governments. The paper also sought to find out the forms of assistance, or palliatives, if any from governmental, non-governmental organizations, corporate bodies and individuals. The paper is an indepth study of select construction and transport workers who are not indigenes of Anambra State, using In-depth Interview Method and Focus Group Discussion. The study revealed, that trapped in precariousness, the daily paid workers in the construction and transport sub sectors of the informal economy faced double jeopardy, not only in terms of the starvation earnings that are irregular, and uncertain, but in its total stoppage, with no safety nets, nor savings to fall back on. It also provides insights into the nature of the relationship that these masons, bricklayers and transport operators have with their ad hoc employers and the State.

Navigating the Perilous Waters of Partisan Scholarship: Participatory Action Research (PAR) with the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF)

Participatory action research (PAR) has been offered up as a methodological orientation for public sociology. The challenges of PAR at the local level have been well documented. In contrast, PAR with the labour movement, in particular international meta-organisations such as global trade union federations, has received short shrift. We demonstrate how partisan scholars working with the labour movement can engage with both the different logics of collective action and the different levels of worker representation in pursuit of (political) emancipation. To illustrate how PAR can be ‘scaled up’ from the local to the global, we reflect on our participation with the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF). This revealed three particular perils of PAR – personal, purpose and political – that partisan scholars must navigate in order to foster action and emancipation by research. While PAR is an affirming process for our research partners, it is not a panacea for their problems.