Health and safety of Working students: Report from pilot study

1. Health and safety of Working students: Report from pilot study Kathryn Woodcock, PhD, PEng Occupational and Public Health Maurice Mazerolle, PhD Business Management

2. Causal model of young worker injury The goal of this research is to validate and determine the weights of the paths in the model so that interventions may focus on more important causal paths.

3. Background to this report • Intent of study • Test feasibility of methods • Improve statistical estimation of sample size requirement to develop multi-factor model • RAC funded as pilot study • Limitations • Pilot not designed to generalize results beyond sample • Findings do suggest areas for further evaluation

4. Young workers 15–24 • Policy and research priority: 10-15 youth fatalities/year in Ontario; almost 16,000 lost time injury claims per year. • Age-based work restrictions largely stop at 18 • Pronounced differences between 15 and 24 year olds • Large proportion of university students must work, yet they may have little more work experience than high school aged workers • Youth information intended for high school audience (but products actually seem to speak to parents in tone and content) • Most youth involvement in program development is “participatory” rather than “self-directed” nature: youth input guided by elders

5. Student involvement • Project philosophy: learn how students themselves define the problem and determine solutions for workplace health and safety • Course project: politics and public administration worked on survey incorporating faculty needs. (approved by Research Ethics Board) • Paid Ryerson Business Consulting Service students to administer surveys in Summer 2002, enter data and produce preliminary analyses • Student research assistant for participant-observation: aborted

6. Pilot findings • Sample characteristics • Performing unsafe work • Factors potentially influencing unsafe work • Invincibility • Hazard knowledge • Rights knowledge • Hazardous work inherent to the job • Injury experience

7. Most respondents (55%) were under 25, but the age distribution allows some age-based comparisons.

8. Workplaces Most respondents worked in business and services , therefore no inter-sector comparisons were possible.

9. Have you performed an unsafe work task(N=179)

12. Risk perception

13. Invincibility beliefs • Respondents who reported having performed an unsafe work task were asked for their reason. An explanation of being personally strong, quick, or resistant, or being usually pretty lucky was classified as an expression of “invincibility”.

14. Invincibility beliefs? • “Invincibility” and risk perception appear to be alternate reasoning strategies, not components of the same strategy. Those perceive injury as impossible do not need to feel invincible, and vice versa.

15. Estimated likelihood (% agreeing) • Contrary to usual beliefs about youth and safety training, more of those older than 25 and with OHS training rated injury/disease as “impossible” than those without training and younger. (Not statistically significant, but opposite direction from conventional wisdom.) • The proportion who rated injury/disease quite possible/likely was not much different between older/younger respondents

16. Hazard knowledge • 79/181 had received no OHS training • Only 67/102 had received OHS training from the current employer

17. Factors affecting training received • Overall 56.4% had received some training at some workplace however this was influenced by unionization and existence of OHS committee. Older students were more likely to work in larger, unionized workplaces and unionized workplaces were more likely to have OHS committees. • Students working in smaller workplaces (<20 employees) were less likely to have safety training (p<.0001)

18. Other sources of hazard knowledge

19. Rights knowledge • Recall reasons presented earlier by those who reported performing unsafe work (N=57) • 21 (37.5%) said that they were unaware that they could refuse unsafe work. • However • 30 (52.6%) feared or were threatened with dismissal if they refused • Rights beliefs are as important as rights knowledge, and beliefs must match reality • Students cannot afford to gamble on rights that may be merely theoretical 

20. Students can’t afford job loss

21. Sources of rights knowledge

22. % Reporting access to a safety committee

23. Injury experience (%) No association with gender, age, existence of safety committee, or workplace size. Relationship with training is counter-intuitive. PILOT LIMITATION:Although a greater proportion of those who had OHS training had injuries than those without training, the sequence of training and injury is unknown. Training may have been given in response to injury or at a later time for some reason.

24. Age affects training-injury relation? • Different association between training and injury when examining older and younger workers separately. • PILOT LIMITATION: may be related to sample size/rate however further study is required. • OHS training approaches have changed over the years.

25. Do young workers have more injuries?

26. Qualitative methodsObservations and results • Student group leadership is more charismatic than bureaucratic, thus priorities are volatile. Commitment is contingent on individuals, but is no less sincere. • Delay of 16 months from proposal to receipt of funds (20 months from original planning discussions) • Student film crew remained available • Original RWSC student leaders were no longer involved • Student organization (RyeSAC) priorities changed. • The video action research was not possible. • RECOMMENDED: Grants involving partnerships with youth organizations must be adjudicated and awarded on a fast track to capture enthusiasm and commitment before individuals change. • Working students deal with health and safety concerns interstitially: while conducting other business. They do not tend to make special trips to pursue information. • Ryerson relocated RWSC to location where drop-in traffic was negligible • Participant-observer had nothing to observe.

27. Acknowledgements • Sponsored by Ontario Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Research Advisory Council “Solutions for Workplace Change” program, Ryerson University Faculty of Community Services and Faculty of Business SRC programs, and Ontario Work-Study Program. • The cooperation of RyeSAC, the Ryerson Working Students’ Centre and the assistance of the students in PPA 553 (Prof. Myer Siemiatycki) and Ryerson Business Consulting Service is gratefully acknowledged.