Safety, Culture and Risk: Migrant Labour in the Norwegian Construction Industry

Safety, culture and risk: Migrant labour in the Norwegian construction industry

Paper presented at the 31th International Labour Process Conference, Rutgers University, 18th-20th March 2013

Session: Migrant Workers in the Labour Process

Mona Bråten, Anne Mette Ødegård, Rolf K. Andersen

Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research

Oslo, Norway

Contact details: Fafo P.O. Box 2947 Tøyen N-0608 Oslo [email protected]

1 Abstract

Since the enlargements of the EU and EEA in 2004 and 2007, there has been a large inflow of labour migrants from the new Member-States to Norway, particularly in the construction industry (Friberg 2013). The huge recruitment of migrant workers into construction – especially through posting and subcontracting exposed already existing weaknesses in the Norwegian regulatory system, with a large section of the labour market being left more or less open for low wage competition and breach of health and safety regulations. This led to a series of measures from the Norwegian government, compiled in two action plans against ‘social dumping’ (Eldring et al. 2011).

Much of the public attention and debate has been related to wage dumping. This is why we want to address the current patterns of employing migrant workers from the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE-workers) and the possible effects on the health, safety and environment (HSE) standards and practice at Norwegian construction sites. The purpose is to get at deeper understanding of what is going on at potential dangerous workplaces in combination with a large proportion of migrant workers.

Reports from the Norwegian Labour Inspectorate show that the CEE-workers have a higher risk of accidents and injuries at the workplaces compared with Norwegian workers. In this paper we will elaborate some of the reasons for this difference. Our main questions are whether it is possible to explain these differences from the assumption that the CEE-workers have a different safety culture and risk perception? Or is the explanation mainly to be found within the recipients; i.e. the Norwegian employers’ lack of capacities to integrate migrant workers in the Norwegian HSE culture? Although it is difficult to measure empirically, we assume that there is a link between safety culture and workplace accidents among migrant workers in the construction sector.

The situation is examined through three representative surveys among employers in the Norwegian construction industry that were carried out in 2006, 2009 and 2010, a survey among shop-stewards in construction companies in 2010, and qualitative data from case studies in construction companies in 2006 and 2011/12.

In order to answer our research questions, we will address issues pertaining to the current situation and take a retrospective glance. This to examine how the migrant CEE-workers have affected the situation regarding health and safety standards and practice in Norwegian construction sites during the years from 2006 to 2011. Our attention is directed at the processes on the business level. A theoretical framework which includes characteristics of the enterprises and the migrant workers, and the possible outcomes on health and safety on the construction sites, will form the basis for the empirical analyses.

1. Introduction

The influx of migrant workers from Central and Eastern Europa (CEE) into Norway after 2004, has given rise to a major debate on the effects of this labour and service migration on the Norwegian labour market, not least with regard to whether it has generated a pressure on Norwegian wage

2 levels and health and safety standards (HSE). The most powerful measure to date for the prevention of ‘social dumping’ is the general application of collective agreements.1 It was first introduced in the manufacturing and construction industries in 2004. A requirement to carry ID cards has also been introduced in the construction industry (from January 1st 2008), as part of the government’s first action plan to prevent social dumping. In addition to the provisions that apply to the areas with a generally applied collective agreement and the transitional regulations described above, stricter rules have come into force with regard to hiring of workers from other manufacturing enterprises and regulations for public procurement require that suppliers must have Norwegian wage levels and labour conditions.

‘Social dumping’ is not an unequivocal term, and the actors in the labour market (e.g. the social partners) might have different perceptions of its content. In this paper we will use the fairly broad definition formulated by the Norwegian government:

“Social dumping occurs when foreign workers are exposed to violations of health, safety and environmental regulations, including rules pertaining to working hours and requirements for residential standards, as well as when these workers are offered wages and other benefits that are unacceptably low compared to those normally received by Norwegian employees or are in contravention of applicable rules for general application of collective agreements.”2

Although health and safety has a prominent place in the government’s definition of social dumping, much of the public attention and debate has been related to wage dumping. This is why we want to address the current patterns of employing migrant workers from the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE-workers) and the possible effects on the general health and safety standards and practice at Norwegian construction sites. The scope of this paper is to analyze how this new situation in Norwegian construction is influencing the HSE-regime at the Norwegian construction sites.

Migrant workers from the CEE-countries are more exposed to accidents, injuries and death at the workplace compared to Norwegians, according to reports from the Norwegian Labour Inspectorate. The risk of getting injured is 2,13 times higher for a foreign worker than a Norwegian worker. And we’ll find the majority of the injured foreign employees in the construction industry (33 per cent). 3 In 2012, totally 42 persons died at workplaces in Norway (all branches). Nine of these (22 per cent) were migrant workers; seven from Poland, one from Latvia and one person from Romania.4 The inspectorate also reports about a higher risk for accidents and injuries for people working in smaller companies (with less than 10 employees).

In this paper we will elaborate some of the reasons for these increased risk-factors for the migrant workers. Is it possible to explain them from the assumption that the CEE-workers have a different safety culture and risk perception? Or is the explanation mainly to be found within the recipients; i.e.

1 General application implies that through a governmental regulation, parts of the collective agreement are made applicable to all employees in a given area.

2 St.meld. nr. 18 (2007-2008)

3 Arbeidstilsynet: Arbeidsskader blant utenlandske arbeidstakere. Kompass Tema nr 2 2012. Arbeidstilsynet:

4 Fleire utanlandske borgarar omkom på jobb i 2012. http://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/nyhet.html?tid=237759

3 the Norwegian employers’ lack of capacities to integrate migrant workers in the Norwegian HSE- culture?

1.1 Data

The situation is examined through three representative surveys among employers in the Norwegian construction industry that were carried out in 2006, 2009 and 2010, a survey among shop-stewards in construction companies in 2010, and qualitative data from case studies in construction companies in 2006 and 2011/12. In 2006, Fafo conducted an investigation of the HSE impact of the use of Eastern European employees in the construction industry (Ødegård et al. 2007). Some of the same questions were repeated in 2009, in a new enterprise survey where we asked about the volume of and experience with CEE- labour (Andersen et al. 2009). And for the third time, the questions were asked in an enterprise survey in the construction industry in 2011. This has allowed us to monitor the development from 2006 to 2011.

2. Background an theoretical framework

Through the EEA-agreement, Norway is a part of EU’s inner market with free movement of goods, services, persons and capital. In 2004, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, The Czech Republic and Slovenia joined the EU, and in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania became Member States. In the years since the enlargements, there has been a large inflow of workers from the new EU member states to Norway. The majority of these workers are Polish, and between May 2004 and November 2011 more than 140,000 Polish citizens had been registered by the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. In addition, between 12 and 18 thousand Polish workers were registered every year as “workers on temporary stay” (Friberg 2013). But there are also considerable numbers of workers from the Baltic States in the Norwegian labour market, and in particular from Lithuania. Numbers from Statistic Norway show that at the end of 2011 almost 80,000 people from the CEE-countries had settled down in Norway on a more permanent basis. 5 The construction industry has been a very important recipient of workers from these countries (ibid.).

In the decade after 2000, the Norwegian construction industry underwent a major expansion. From 2000 to 2008, employment in the industry increased from approximately 140,000 to almost 185,000 employees (Andersen and Jordfald 2010).

Enterprise managers often report that they use CEE-labour mainly because it is difficult to recruit Norwegian or Nordic workers for these jobs. In 2009 as well as in 2006, a tight labour market and shortage of labour were given as the main reasons for the use of Eastern European workers (Andersen et al. 2009), while only three per cent of the respondents to the 2009 survey reported that lower wage costs were their main motivation for using labour from the new EU member states.

5SSB 2011, Sysselsatte etter bosettingsstatus og landbakgrunn. 4. kvartal 2011

4 Furthermore, the decision to introduce general application of collective agreements has made the use of migrant less relevant as a measure to save wage costs in the construction industry.

The global financial crisis had an impact also in Norway. Compared to other European countries, however, Norway was relatively less affected, and the economy also underwent a more rapid recovery. As in other countries, the construction industry in Norway was among the industries most affected by the global financial crisis. On the whole, however, the unemployment rate in Norway must be viewed as low, even in the construction industry. As a consequence, several industries in the Norwegian labour market face shortages of labour, including the construction industry. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the financial crisis as such has turned Norway into an even more attractive destination for job-seekers from Europe in general, and from Eastern-Europe in particular.

In various projects undertaken since 2006, Fafo has identified the proportion of enterprises in the construction industry that have recruited Eastern European workers, through direct employment, hiring or subcontracting (Dølvik et al. 2006, Andersen et al. 2010). Figure 2.1 shows the growth in the use of such labour in the period 2006-2011.

Figure 2.1: Proportion of enterprises in the construction industry that have used labour from the new EU Member States during the preceding 12 months, 2006-2011.

In all of our studies we have seen a clear trend that the propensity of enterprises to use labour from the new Member States increases in proportion to their total number of employees. For example, a study from 2011 showed that among enterprises with more than 25 employees the proportion that used CEE- labour was 57 per cent, while in enterprises with 10-24 employees this proportion was 34 per cent. Even though the largest enterprises are the most active recruiters, it should be emphasized that also among small enterprises more than one in three use labour from CEE-countries.

The forms of employment/engagement of the CEE-workers in the enterprises vary (Andersen et al. 2009, Bråten et al. 2012). In 2011, 38 per cent of the enterprises used direct employment when recruiting CEE-workers. 43 per cent of the enterprises had their experience with CEE-workers employed by sub-contractors or hiring firms, while 19 per cent of the enterprises used both strategies. In the actual period, there has been an increase in the proportion of enterprises that have employed the workers directly, on permanent or temporary basis. But at the same time, we can see that the companies still uses the whole range of employment- forms.

2.1 The notion of “Safety culture” – theoretical framework

Organizational culture is a concept often used to describe shared corporate values that affect and influence members’ attitudes and behaviors. Safety culture is a sub-facet of organizational culture, which is thought to affect members’ attitudes and behavior in relation to an organization’s ongoing health and safety performance (Cooper 2000). Antonsen (2009) argues that there are some important differences between the safety culture approach and the safety management approach.

5 The safety management approach is predominantly oriented towards formal organization. The safety culture approach, on the other hand, is oriented towards the informal aspects of the organization.

Flin et al (2000, referred in Antonsen 2009) have conducted a meta-study of previous empirical attempts to study safety climate and found five broad themes that pervade much of the research:

1. Management. Managers’ commitment to safety in relation to other organizational goals, e.g. production, is the most recurrent theme in the study. This factor pre-sumably pertains to the commitment of senior managers, middle managers and supervisors.

2. Safety system. Various aspects of the safety systems within organizations also constitute a recurrent theme in the studies reviewed by Flin and colleagues. Among the dimensions in this factor are respondents’ opinions on safety policies, safety equipment and permit to work systems. Opinions related to accident and incident reporting could probably also be placed under this heading.

3. Risk. This category consists of perceptions and attitudes towards risk and safety, including risk- taking behavior and perceptions of worksite hazards.

4. Work pressure. Issues related to work pace and workload must be seen in close relation to the management category and concern the balancing of safety and production. This is probably the most widely recognized component of safety culture, and one that may be increasingly important given the fierce competition and drive towards cost reduction that characterizes the global economy.

5. Competence. This factor encompasses aspects like selection and training of the work force, as well as the company’s assessment of worker competence.

In addition to these five themes, Flin et al. mention the role of procedures and rules. Although they do not find this a recurring theme in the studies reviewed, they emphasize workers’ compliance with or violation of rules as a topic that may be worthy of more attention.

There are no clear borders between the research on safety climate and safety culture. It is difficult to distinguish explicitly between studies of climate and studies of culture (Antonsen 2009). Oltedal (2011) pinpoints that organizations also consist of multiple goals that often is in competing conflict, for example profit and safety. Oltedal (ibid) also emphasize that the priorities between conflicting goals often has shown the strongest prediction on actual behavior at the work place.

Safety management Safety management systems have to interrelated main functions: to avoid accidents and improve safety. Theories of accident causation and safety management have progressed over time (Brys, Dennis&Legget, 2009, see Oltedal 2011). In our studies we have found that the smallest companies (less than 10 employees) in the construction industry often lack systematic safety systems (Bråten et al. 2008; Andersen et al. 2009). These companies have little or no attention to safety in the work process compared to larger enterprises (Bråten et.al 2012). Investigations of the reciprocal relationships between safety climate and safety management systems could provide some useful insights into safety culture (Cooper 2000). Norwegian authorities have, in cooperation with the social partners, established extensive requirements for the companies’ systematic HSE work (Andersen et al 2009). In particular, there are strict HSE requirements for companies in the construction industry. These rules are an important part

6 of the context for these companies, and it is assumed that the companies develop their own safety systems on the basis of this common regulatory.

Analyzing safety culture – a reciprocal model A reciprocal model provides an integrative way of thinking about the many processes that impact on safety culture. Cooper (2000) has adapted and developed Bandura’s (1986) model of reciprocal determinism to reflect the concept of safety culture. Our assessment is that the basic elements of this model can be a useful input to the study of safety culture and safety management on Norwegian construction sites with migrant workers. The model contains three elements which encompass subjective internal psychological factors, observable ongoing safety-related behaviors and objective situational features. In Cooper’s revised model, the internal psychological factors (i.e. attitudes and perceptions) are assessed via safety climate questionnaires, actual ongoing safety-related behavior is assessed via checklists developed as a part of behavioral safety initiatives, while the situational features are assessed via safety management system audits/inspections. Each of these safety culture components can be directly measured in their own right, or in combinations, which enables to quantify safety culture in a meaningful way at many different organizational levels. The potential of the reciprocal model for analyzing “culture” resides in the explicit recognition that the relative strength of each source may be different in any given situation: e.g. the design of the production system may exert stronger effects on someone’s work-related behavior than that person’s attitudes.

Fig. 2.2 Reciprocal safety culture model (Cooper 2000).

7 Person Internal Psychological Safety Climate Factors Perceptual Audit

External Situation Observable Factors Safety Management system CONTEXT Objective Audit

Behaviour Safety Behaviour Perceptual Audit

3. The HSE-experiences with migrant workers at Norwegian construction sites

Our surveys among construction enterprises through several years, provides an opportunity to see whether, and possibly how, the experiences of the enterprises have changed with regard to labour immigration and its impact on the health and safety situation, here operationalized as migrant’s knowledge to HSE-regulations, language difficulties and increased risks of accidents as a consequence of communication problems, different social conventions, varieties in the forms of employment/engagement and ethnic division at the workplace.

We also asked what kinds of measures the enterprises/management had introduced to amend any problems encountered in these areas, to see whether any changes had occurred during the intervening years. These matters belong to the enterprises safety management system and are objective audit cf. figure 2.2

Employers and employees are obligated to comply with a cluster of rules intended to ensure that health, safety and environmental issues are addressed in the workplaces. The employers are fundamentally responsible for compliance with the HSE-regulations, but the employees are obligated to take part in the elaboration, implementation and follow-up of the systematic HSE efforts undertaken by the enterprise. The HSE-rules are pursuant to national legislation, i.e. they apply to all who work in Norway, irrespective of where the enterprise is registered in Norway or the nationality of the employees (Alsos 2007).

Within the EEA area, all regulations share a common basis in the form of EU directives, and the Norwegian provisions are not noticeably different from the EU regulations in this area, with the exception of a few issues: Norway requires HSE-training for the top manager, and has a separate set of provisions pertaining to safety efforts and working environment committees. In addition, the

8 Norwegian regulations define stricter requirements for systematic HSE-efforts within enterprises (Ødegård et al. 2007).

3.1. The labour immigration’s impact on the HSE-situation

The construction industry is mobile in nature, since the types and places of work vary from one project to the next. All new projects and construction sites present site-specific problems and unpredictable hazards (Bosch and Philips 2003). Competitive pressure combined with tight time schedules often leads to deficient planning and poor coordination. At the same time, tight time schedules increase the requirements for internal communication. The tight time schedules also often serve to shift more decision-making down to the ‘shop floor’. Another factor is the industry’s widespread use of hired labour and subcontracting, that might contribute to dissolve a common business-culture into which managers and employees are thoroughly socialized. The industry has therefore for many years been facing major challenges with regard to HSE, independently of the immigration of labour and service providers from the new EU member states (Ødegård et al. 2007).

The use of Eastern European labour was highlighted as one of the main general challenges with regard to health and safety issues in the Norwegian construction industry in 2006 (Ødegård et al. 2007). These challenges in terms of HSE-efforts must be seen in light of the general HSE work undertaken by the enterprises. From previous studies we know that the largest enterprises have the best developed systems, while small enterprises more often tend to have deficient systems and pursue their HSE efforts less systematically (Bråten et al. 2008; Andersen et al. 2009). In Section 2 above, we saw that one in three enterprises with 10-24 employees has used Eastern European labour. It is reasonable to assume that deficient HSE systems combined with a growing proportion of Eastern European labour with a different safety culture, may have a negative impact on health, safety and environmental issues – in particular for the migrant workers, but also for the overall situation at the sites. In 2006 and in 2009, the enterprise managers were requested to state their opinion about challenges pertaining to language skills and familiarity with HSE-regulations, as well as whether language and communication problems had led to more frequent accidents in the workplace. There are indications that the scope of the challenges remained unchanged over the three intervening years.

Firstly, there has been an increase in the proportion of enterprise managers who fully or partly agree with the assertion that employees from the new EU member states lack knowledge of the HSE- regulations. In 2006 a total of 51 per cent of the managers agreed to this, while in 2009 the proportion had risen to 69 per cent. Not only knowledge of HSE, but also the safety culture differs among the Eastern Europeans, according to a Safety Officer:

“The safety culture is not the same as with us. They have a completely different approach to personal safety than the Norwegians. And they never refuse to do a job even if they consider that security is inadequate.”

Secondly, it is the question of language and the potential danger of not understanding each other at the work-place. The absence of a shared language gives rise to challenges, in terms of HSE issues as

9 well as labour contracts, which must be translated into several languages. In the interviews, the inspectors from the Labour Inspection Authority and the regional safety delegates described hazardous situations that had occurred as a consequence of poor language skills, inappropriate safety cultures and deficient HSE training among Eastern European workers. In addition, the regional safety representatives point out that the Eastern European workers often lack employment contracts and safety training.

“Some places you have to sign that you know the HSE-guidelines that apply to the workplace. I've seen that Poles have signed on papers in Norwegian they do not understand at all” (Regional Safety Representatives).

Poor language skills also make the employees more vulnerable to employers who attempt to exploit them, since not all employers are equally concerned with complying with applicable rules and regulations. In a recent newspaper article, a Polish-speaking attorney specializing in labour law stated that employers often expose Poles with poor language skills to flagrant violations of the Working Environment Act: “In my experience, the poorer the Norwegian language skills of the Pole in question, the more flagrant are the violations of the applicable regulations” (Garstecki, Dagbladet, 20 June 2011). Garstecki has seen that Polish workers who have learned Norwegian are better equipped to meet the challenges and expectations of the Norwegian labour market. The author claims that better language skills are the key to combating social dumping among Polish employees in Norway

Figure 3.1: Proportion of enterprise managers who claim that having employees from the new EU member states gives rise to language problems in the workplace, and that communication problems have caused more frequent accidents, 2006 and 2009.

As shown by Figure 3.1, the proportion of enterprise managers who agreed to the assertion that hiring of Eastern European labour gives rise to language problems increased from 2006 to 2009. This

10 is a surprising result, if we assume that the foreign employees would gradually tend to improve their Norwegian language skills, while their Norwegian colleagues would adapt to their presence. Most likely, this is a reflection of how the realities of the situation have gradually dawned on the enterprise managers; as long as the labour immigration from the East was a relatively recent phenomenon they may have underestimated the linguistic challenges involved. We should also take into account that in the period from 2006 to 2009, the proportion of enterprises that report having employed, hired or subcontracted Eastern European labour has increased strongly (cf. Figure 2.1). With an increasing number of enterprises using labour from the East the problem is likely to persist, since ever more enterprises must encounter these language problems before they can start to address them.

These findings indicate that the enterprise managers have gained more thorough experience of potential problems and challenges associated with the internationalization of the workplaces. Therefore, these findings are not necessarily negative.

Thirdly, from our qualitative interviews, we find differences in the social conventions between the nationalities and also differences when it comes to respect for superiors/management. The fact that CEE- workers say “yes” anyway, and fear to speak out about dangerous conditions, was an important point in the survey from 2006 (Ødegård et al. 2007). One is apparently not gotten rid of this challenge. A Safety Manager said it this way:

“The biggest problem is that they are trained to say "yes". This is a challenge for us.”

Fourthly, issues pertaining to knowledge and training include the Eastern European employees’ form of employment/engagement to Norwegian workplaces. The motivation for training, on the part of the employees as well as the employers, is likely to be higher in the context of permanent employment. Workers who are contracted or hired by a sub-contractor for a specific job will often spend only shorter periods working in Norway.

Fifthly, there is a widespread practice of ethnic division at the workplace, which restricts training and knowledge transfer. Especially in large workplaces the nationalities tend to work in separate groups. In a study of Poles in Oslo, Friberg (2011) finds that 53 per cent of the construction workers normally speak Polish at work, and the vast majority of them report that they work in teams composed exclusively of other Poles. To them, the working situation provides very restricted opportunities for learning to speak Norwegian. According to Friberg, this could help explain why the construction workers on average report having poorer language skills than others, even irrespective of having attended a Norwegian language course and of their length of stay in Norway. The purpose of this separation is precisely to avoid language problems and misunderstandings. On the other hand, working side by side would be an efficient form of training, with regard to working methods, HSE culture and language. According to informants from the enterprises, the social partners and the Labour Inspection Authority, this form of organization was common in 2006, and was still prevalent in 2009. This could entail further subdivision and slower learning processes.

“It has become common to have groups of foreigners supervised by a foreman, and they are not provided with any training – they speak only with the foreman. This is a problem” (Regional safety delegate, 2011).

11 3.2 What kinds of measures have the enterprises implemented?

As mentioned in the introduction, the construction industry has struggled over a number of years to address inappropriate attitudes and poor follow-up with regard to HSE- issues, independently of the labour and service mobility from the new EU member states. However, immigration may have aggravated the HSE problems faced by Norwegian enterprises. As a follow-up question to the identification of the prevailing challenges, the enterprise managers were asked to state what kinds of measures they had implemented to address the problems.

Figure 3.2: Measures and schemes implemented by the enterprises for employees from the new EU Member States. Enterprises with more than ten employees 2006-2011. Percentage.

31 Vocational training 54 46 Training in health, safety and environmental 42 76 issues arranged by your enterprise 68 22 Language training 36 40 18 Use of interpreters 22 20 41 Use of bilingual foremen 55 50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2006 2009 2011

The most common scheme, in 2006, 2009 and 2011, was training in health, safety and environmental issues. This is also a mandatory training requirement. The Working Environment Act stipulates that all Norwegian enterprises must undertake systematic HSE efforts, in collaboration with the employees and their representatives. Special requirements for training in HSE-issues and systematic HSE efforts apply to industries with a high risk of injuries and accidents, such as the construction industry. The large proportion of enterprises that report having provided HSE training to employees from the new EU member states indicates that the CEE-workers in many cases have been well integrated into the enterprises’ HSE efforts. While there was a strong increase in the proportion of enterprises that report providing HSE-training to their CEE-employees from 2006 to 2009, the figure

12 shows a not inconsiderable decrease from 2009 to 2011. The causes of this reversal trend are somewhat uncertain. One interpretation could be that CEE-labour has become well integrated and has received the appropriate HSE-training from present or former employers. The responses indicate that in general, broad attention is devoted to HSE-issues. The authorities, the trade unions and the employers’ organizations have placed great emphasis on providing information on HSE- requirements, and on making appropriate information material in several languages available in the workplaces. It would appear that this effort has produced results, in that the enterprises have increasingly made this information available. Nevertheless, the decrease that has taken place from 2009 to 2011 gives reasons to ask whether the enterprises have taken this task sufficiently seriously, giving lower priority to HSE training in a busy everyday setting, in combination with an increasing proportion of enterprises using CCE-workers.

During the period from 2006 to 2009 there was also an increase in the proportion of enterprises responding that they provided vocational training, but with regard to this factor as well, we can see a reverse trend in the period from 2009 to 2011. A possible interpretation could be that the enterprises find that CEE-workers possess the required vocational skills, or that these workers are allocated to jobs that require little in terms of vocational skills or training .There may be some differences between residential construction and heavy construction. Residential construction involves some jobs that pose no comprehensive training requirements, whereas major civil works projects set stricter requirements for training and certificates to operate heavy machinery or tools.

Other measures are associated with challenges pertaining to language skills and communication, which the enterprise managers continue to perceive as a problem related to hiring of Eastern European labour. From Figure 3.2 we can see that there has been a consistent increase in the proportion of enterprises that provide language training to their employees. Among the types of measures that we requested the enterprises to report, language training is the only one for which no decrease can be observed from 2009 to 2011. Problems associated with insufficient language skills and concurrent increases in the risk of accidents and injuries were also highlighted in the qualitative interviews. The interviews reveal that there has been a change in attitude among employers with regard to the provision of language training. In 2006, the attitudes to language training and competence development were characterized to a greater degree by the notion that hiring of workers from the new EU member states represented a temporary solution to cope with production backlogs in an industry that operated at full capacity. Thus, in 2006, the hiring of Eastern European labour was mainly seen as a solution to the shortage of Norwegian labour, and in this situation the attempts to solve communication problems mainly involved hiring interpreters and bilingual foremen. In 2011, however, the situation had changed; the Eastern European labour had become a more permanent factor, and the enterprises had recognized to a greater extent that the language and communication problems in the workplaces needed to be addressed by the provision of language training on an individual basis. The fact that there has been an increase in direct employment of migrant workers may also have caused that the employers have acknowledged the need for language training. While the proportion that reports using interpreters has remained nearly constant throughout the period 2006-2011, there was a slight decrease in the proportion that employs bilingual foremen.

As we already have pointed out; the smallest businesses have in general the lowest levels of HSE- systems. However our data show surprisingly small differences between large and small enterprises

13 when it comes to different measures put in place for CEE-workers. When we look at figures for the proportion of companies that had offered vocational training, there are in essence no differences between the smallest (1-5 employees) and largest (45 employees or more). In fact, it is the intermediate group - companies with 6-24 employees – that seems to take this job most seriously. Safety training is, as shown in Figure 3.2, the most common measure that companies implements for the CEE-workers (63 percent among the smallest companies to 70 percent of the largest companies). Language training is the measure where there is greatest variation between the different company sizes. Here it is the middle group (6-24 employees and 24-44 employees) that does the biggest effort. A total of 34 percent of the companies offered language training. Among the smallest the share was 24 percent, among the medium 37 and 38 per cent and among the largest companies it was 33 percent that offered language training.

4. Discussion: The interaction between personal and organisational factors

The reciprocal safety culture model (fig. 2.2) can help us to assess the safety culture in an organization. Cooper (2000) emphasizes the mutual relations between the elements of this model. It is likely that the risk of accidents will increase if one or more of the elements are considered weak. Safety culture does not operate in a vacuum; it affects, and in turn is affected by, other non-safety related operational processes or organizational systems (ibid).

In this paper we have used the model as a mind map to discuss the possible impact of CEE-labour migrants on the safety situation in the construction industry in Norway. We have to take into consideration that the enterprises in the construction industry are under constant competition (price)-pressure, and an increasing shortage of Norwegian manpower. In this discussion it is also important to bear in mind that the construction industry for many years has been facing major challenges with regard to HSE, independently of the immigration of labour and service providers from the new EU member states. But the statistics from the Labour Inspectorate and the results from our surveys show we can assume that that there is a link between badly performed safety culture (safety situation) and workplace accidents as a result of CEE-workers in the construction sector.

We started out to ask if the CEE-workers are more exposed to accidents, injuries and even death at the workplace because they have a different safety culture and risk perception (the personal factor) or is the explanation mainly to be found within the recipients; i.e. the Norwegian employers’ lack of capacities to integrate migrant workers in the Norwegian HSE-culture (the organisational factor).

The Norwegian authorities, in cooperation with the social partners, have during several decades put great effort in developing a safety-regime to ensure good and healthy working conditions, and systems to prevent accidents. The government’s action-plans against ‘social dumping’ in 2006 and 2008 have contributed to improve the safety-conditions for CEE-workers at the Norwegian construction sites. The major inflow of CEE-workers and the broad public debate about ‘social dumping’ has probably contributed to greater awareness of the potential problems with multicultural work-places.

14 Still there is a need for greater awareness of safety culture, and the more concrete content of the notion. This goes for the level in which the safety culture is formed and transformed - namely the business and site level where the work is performed and the safety culture is reflected in practice. As we have pointed out, there are large variations in how the enterprises put the safety regulations into practice. The variations are found along several dimensions. For example, large companies are in general better equipped and prepared when it comes to HSE-systems. And, as we have seen in this paper, there are differences in to what extent the companies had implemented various measures for their CEE-workers. The employers’ attitudes towards risk and safety are also part of the picture. The latter may in many cases be linked to the industry’s general pressure on prices, time and efficiency and that these matters at times overrule the health and safety-issues on the sites.

We have in this paper shown different aspects of the employees’ personal characteristics, how managements deal with challenges related to migrant workers and how these two features can be linked and interact with each other. The third side in the model (and in our setting we can call it the depended variable) is the impact on HSE-standards in the construction industry and the increased risk for migrant workers to get involved in accidents.

Our data are limited when it comes to potential different attitudes between workers from Norway and CEE-countries. But we have done interviews with managers, regional safety delegates, and labour inspectors which give us indications that the CEE-workers attitudes towards safety and management are different than the attitudes normally found among Norwegian workers. These differences might constitute a risk-factor in the daily work-performance. The explanation of these differences can, according to the reciprocal model, be found both in the enterprises’ management system and/or in the workers personal attitudes. In our study, however, two areas are of particular importance: language and work-organisation. In many cases the CEE-workers constitute sub-groups at the sites, a situation which can obstruct the integration process.

Cooper emphasize that the reciprocal model is useful as a model for providing organizations with a common frame of reference that can be particular important to industries where use of sub- contractors is widespread, “as people from different organizations will be able to communicate in the same language” (Cooper 2000, pp. 121). In the construction industry in Norway, as in many other countries, the use of sub-contractors is wide spread. But the notion of a common language to communicate a common understanding of safety risks or safety culture is not straight forward. Even at the management level the extensive use of workers from CEE-countries can put substantial constraints on the effort or willingness to develop a common frame for safety culture.

The work language in Norwegian construction sites is of course mainly Norwegian. A large inflow of migrant workers from the new Eastern EU member states has highlighted severe constraints of the Norwegian HSE-regime. The migrant workers do not speak the native language and often also very limited English; as a result there are clear signs that the much needed communication of safety regulations in the work place is undergoing considerable troubles. The motivation for training, on the part of the employees as well as the employers, is likely to be higher in the context of permanent employment. CEE-workers who are contracted or hired by a sub-contractor for a specific job will often spend only shorter periods working in Norway or on the actual construction site. The motivation to include the CCE workers in a common understanding of safety issues can therefore be limited both on the organizational level and from the CEE-workers point of view.

15 The interpretation that the enterprise managers have become more aware of potential problems may explain the decrease in the proportion claiming that language and communication problems have caused more frequent accidents in the workplaces (see Figure 3.1), which in fact is a positive development. In 2009, nine per cent of the enterprise managers agreed to the assertion that language problems constituted a safety risk, compared to 17 per cent three years earlier. But, as we emphasized in the introduction, numbers from the Labour Inspectorate from 2012 reveals that the CEE-workers still are more exposed than native Norwegians to accidents, injuries and even death at the workplace

Deficient language skills and communication problems stand out as one of the main challenges associated with the use of Eastern European labour in Norwegian workplaces. This problem must be addressed both to the employees and the management. It is a personal responsibility to be able to communicate at the workplace, and according to Norwegian regulations the employees are obliged to take part in the fulfilling of a good HSE-system. On the other hand, the enterprise has the overall responsibility for a safe and healthy workplace, which includes necessary training. These are common requirements for the enterprises safety management systems. At a construction site it is necessary to communicate in order to avoid incidents and accidents. Even though an increasing proportion of enterprises respond that they provide language training, Figure 3.2 shows that this still applies only to a minority of them (40 per cent).

Several enterprise managers have also experienced that CEE-workers require closer follow-up than their Norwegian colleagues, who are trained for greater job autonomy. Regional safety delegates reported that CEE-employees tended to wait more often for an order from their superiors, but also stated that the superior has a limited influence with regard to compliance with HSE standards, devotion to the job and the use of mandatory protective gear:

“The culture is that they will listen to ‘the boss’, but as soon as he leaves, they sit down, light a cigarette and take their helmets off” (Regional safety delegate, 2011).

The worker’s attitudes towards personal safety equipment and understanding of the HSE-regulations are also vital preconditions for a safe environment. And this is also a responsibility that must be divided between employers and employees. The quote above also illustrates that many of the CEE- workers are unfamiliar with the social convention at the Norwegian workplaces, characterized by a short distance between workers and management.

There’s also this quite paradoxical situation that many enterprises report about lack of knowledge of the HSE-regulations in Norway among the migrant workers, but at the same time the proportion of enterprises offering HSE-training has been reduced from 2009 to 2011.

The labour market is often portrayed as a key arena for language training and social integration of immigrants. This requires an understanding of how a multicultural working-place is functioning, and in many ways this is “learning by doing”, for both employers and employees. In the wake of the increased proportion of CEE-employees in the construction industry the enterprise managers have sought new ways to organize the work processes to overcome the practical difficulties. The regional safety delegates have observed that several enterprises organize the work process into groups of Eastern European employees under the supervision of a foreman who speaks Norwegian and/or English in addition to the mother tongue. According to the regional safety delegates, this form of

16 organization presents problems with regard to communication with the other employees and management of the enterprise. This organization of the work processes serves to intensify the experience of increased language problems. In Figure 3.2 we saw that nearly half of the enterprises report that they employ bilingual foremen. In cases where these act as a barrier to communication between the CEE-employees and the Norwegian staff and management, this could produce a number of undesired effects. Relying on bilingual foremen can thus serve to restrict rather than promote appropriate communication and development of language skills in the workplace. Our investigations show that this form of organization of work processes is likely to have had negative effects on compliance with HSE standards in the construction industry. At the same time, this has been a restricting factor for the integration and mobility of this group in the Norwegian labour market.

Provision of individual language training, however, would be more likely to have an integrating effect, and is also a long-term measure indicating that the enterprises want to retain their foreign employees for a prolonged period.

Better language skills and opportunities for communication are key measures for integrating the CEE- workers into the Norwegian labour market and society in general. Lowering the language barrier could also help counteract the unfortunate tendency towards separate classes of workers at the construction site, a trend which has worried Norwegian authorities and trade unions in particular. Common language is also an important measure to prevent sub-groups and different perceptions of risk and safety culture among workers at the construction site.

References Alsos, K. (2007) HMS-regler i Norge og Polen – en sammenligning. Fafo-notat 2007:13. Oslo: Fafo

Alsos, K., Eldring, L. (2008), “Labour mobility and wage dumping: The case of Norway.” European Journal of Industrial Relations 14(4):441-459.

Andersen, R.K. og Jordfald, B. (2010) Arbeidstakere i byggenæringen. Hvem er de, hvor kommer de fra og hvor går de? Fafo-rapport 2010:25 Oslo: Fafo

Andersen, R.K, Bråten, M., Eldring, L., Friberg, J.H., Ødegård, A.M. (2009) Norske bedrifters bruk av østeuropeisk arbeidskraft. Fafo-rapport 2009:46. Oslo: Fafo

Andersen R.K., Bråten, M., Gjerstad, B., Tharaldsen, J. (2009) Systematisk HMS-arbeid i norske virksomheter. Status og utfordringer 2009. Fafo-rapport 2009:51. Oslo: Fafo

Antonsen, S. (2009), Safety Culture: Theory, Method and Improvement. Ashgate 2009.

Bosch, G and Philips, P. (ed.) (2003) Building Chaos. An international comparison of deregulation in the construction industry. London: Routledge Research Studies in Business Organization.

Bråten, M., Andersen, R.K., Svalund, J. (2008) HMS-tilstanden i Norge 2007. Fafo-rapport 2008:20. Oslo: Fafo

Bråten, M., A. M. Ødegård, R.K. Andersen (2012), Samarbeid og HMS-utfordringer i bygg- og anleggsnæringen. Fafo-rapport 2012:52

17 Cooper, M.D., (2000), Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science 36 (2000):111-136

Dølvik, J.E., Eldring, L. Friberg, J.H., Kvinge, T., Aslesen, S., Ødegård, A.M. (2006) EU-utvidelsen: Endringer i norske bedrifters arbeidskraftsstrategier? Fafo-notat 2006:14. Oslo: Fafo

Eldring, L. (2011) ’Norway’. In: Cremers, J., In search of cheap labour in Europe. Working and living conditions of posted workers. CLR Studies 6. Brussels: International Books. Eldring, L., A. M. Ødegård, R. K. Andersen, M. Bråten, K. Nergaard, K. Alsos (2011), Evaluering av tiltak mot sosial dumping. Fafo-rapport 2011:09 Friberg, J.H. (2011) '"Do nauki norweskiego" - Språk(opp)læring og arbeidslivsintegrering blant polske arbeidsinnvandrere i Oslo'. IMDi's Integreringskart 2011. Oslo: IMDi Friberg, J. H & Eldring, L. (2011), Polonia i Oslo 2010.

Friberg, J. H. (2013), The Polish Worker in Norway. Emerging patterns of migration, employment and incorporation after EU’s eastern enlargement. Dissertation submitted for the degree Philosophiae Doctor (PhD). University of Oslo: Department of Sociology and Human Geography

Oltedal, H. (2011), Safety culture and safety management within the Norwegian-controlled shipping industry. State of art, interrelationships and influencing factors. PhD Thesis no 137. University of Stavanger: Faculty of Social Sciences.

Ødegård, A.M., Aslesen, S., Bråten, M., Eldring, L. (2007) Fra øst uten sikring? EU-utvidelsen og HMS- konsekvenser på norske bygge- og anleggsplasser. Fafo-rapport 2007:3. Oslo: Fafo