At the May 1968 conference of the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, a member said "I am fed up with coming to meetings and being applauded as a worker or even as a trade unionist" - and he stuck his thumbs in imaginary braces over a beer-laden corporation - "I am a human being and I want to be listened to as a human being". To be a human being in contemporary terms is to demand the freedom to create and control one's own life, and to see that this freedom only arises through a collective, through common action. To imbue the working population with this consciousness is the primary aim of revolutionaries, for without this aspiration being present in large numbers of workers there can be no political struggle with a revolutionary content. If this change in consciousness is to be brought about, (amongst other areas of social life) it must be done at the point of production, in the factory, workplace or office. This task is separate from and may even be opposed to, the traditional trade union struggle of economic work, it is the content of what is meant by workers control.
This preamble is necessary in a discussion of occupational health so that we can be clear what we are trying to achieve. However necessary in functional terms (of saving lives and health) an occupational health service may be, if the campaign is to have a socialist content it must focus on the need to raise the question of control of their working lives amongst workers. And more, it must demonstrate that health itself is a social concept, it depends on the way people live in the organisation of society.
WORK IS DANGEROUS
First, we should look at the evidence for industrial illness. Accident rates have been rising steadily for years. In 1954 they were 22 per thousand employed, by 1963, 29 per thousand, a total of 204,648. In 1964 the figure went up to 268,468, 1965 to 293,717, in 1966 to 296,610, and the provisional figure for 1967 tops the 300,000 mark. This is in a population of 7,381,000 subject to the Factory Acts. The total accidents estimated from claims submitted to national insurance (now social security) for industrial injuries in 1963 was 845,000. There were 194,000 disabled people receiving benefit, and 2,110 death benefits granted. And even this is an under-estimate. A sample survey by the Factory Inspectorate SHOWED ONLY [illegible] 60% of accidents were in fact registered (compulsory if causing 3 days or more off work), and in the construction industry only 43%.
Work places are dirty, dangerous and badly organised, and this is the prime cause of accidents. The inspectorate carried out detailed surveys in Halifax and in Stoke-on-Trent some years ago which proved this, and a recent reminder [illegible] the annual [illegible] vention (1968). In general [illegible] hygiene, housekeeping, and first aid provision was poor, especially in small factories. Of the injuries received 8% had no first aid at all. Many of the injuries were caused by lack of guards on machines or guards not in position, or failure to use protective clothing.
PREVENTION THE ANSWER
Yet the vast majority of accidents are obviously and easily preventable - by sticking to the rules and taking care. Large concerns which do so (e.g. Du Pont Construction - see Industrial Safety Aug. 1965) have almost accident free records, and the Factory Inspectorate Annual Reports give other examples. The responsibility for this attention to detail lies with management, and their failure is an aspect of the general inadequacy of management in British industry. Each lost time accident costs £300, so it is economic inefficiency to have high accident rates. Yet the Chief Inspector of Mines and Quarries (1964 Report) comments: "it would appear that far too many people hold the view that high rates of production cannot be obtained if the requirements of the rules and regulations are always observed. This outlook fosters the attitude that safety is a thing apart - real safety lies in getting every job, at all levels, done in the right way" (result, one miner in three is injured every year in coalmining.)
POLITICAL PROBLEMS
This touches on one of the major political problems. Since the organisation of a work place is a managerial prerogative, and this determines safety, to ask miners themselves to act on safety is a direct challenge to the power of management. It is also a challenge to workers to alter their present attitudes and feel that they have the right to make decisions on such matters. This is more than a traditional struggle over conditions, it needs thought over the entire structure of a work place and not just particular aspects (tea breaks, lavatory facilities, etc.) and thus a higher degree of collective consciousness.
A second problem is also implied in the above discussion - why were guards not fitted, why was protective clothing not always worn? In many discussions with unions the point has been emphasised of how frequently in prevailing circumstances earnings conflict with safety requirements. Bonus systems and piece-rates tempt workers to ignore safety rules if by so doing they can work faster and earn more. The same is true of overtime which increases fatigue and is associated with higher accident, and neurosis, rates, or danger money which trades health for cash. We have to face up to these difficulties frankly and they emphasise the contradiction mentioned earlier, between a political and an economic content to a struggle.