In 1993, Danish employers, trade unions and government initiated a major and ambitious voluntary programme for action against monotonous and repetitive work (MRW) at the workplace. The aim was a 50% reduction of hazardous MRW by the year 2000. The action programme requests each company to map out the extent of MRW and to draw up an action programme for the reduction of MRW. Included below is the first evaluation of this action programme. The evaluation includes telephone interviews of 200 companies, randomlly selected form trades with MRW, and case studies in 30 of these companies.

The actionplan was initiated by a motion in the Danish Parliament which requied activities to reduce repetitive work. The reason for the motion was several years of activities by unions and others for recognition of RSI. The most important action was a demonstration by textile workers in front of the Parliament in which they burned their refused applications for compensation. After the motion the TUC and employers federation made the actionplan which was subsequently endorsed by the Ministry of labour.

Danish unions have been involved in tripartite and bipartite activities on all levels - at the national level, industry level and in companies. In the companies it has been through shop stewards and safety reps.

THE DANISH ACTIONPLAN FOR REDUCTION OF REPETITIVE WORK (launched 1993 by employers and unions and endoresed by the Minstry of Labour

Objective: Reduction of hazardous repetitive work with 50% by year 2000

Instruments:

A.Coordinating committee at central level
B.Industrial working environment councils to initate and monitor
C.Companies to make local actionplans
D.The labour inspectorate to support
E.In addition, financial support, training, information and research

IV.Definition of hazardous repetitive work:

A.More than 3-4 hours daily work characterized by a work cycle <30 seconds or same movement >50% of cycle time
V.Midterm evaluation 1998

Methods and material:

A.Random sample of 200 companies with incidence of RSI above average
B.Visits to 33 companies
C.Telephone interviews with 161 companies
D.Interviews with key persons at central level

VI.Methodological difficulties:

A.No baseline of prevalence 1993
B.Difficult for companies to remember number of employees with repetitive work before changes
C.Limited sample
D.Health hazard has not been studied

VII.Results I:

A.Most companies have knowledge about the actionplan
B.Most companies have implemented reasonable measures
C.The amount of repetitive work has been reduced with approximately 25%
D.The effort has had positive secondary effects

VIII.Results II:

A.Most companies have not properly assessed repetitive work
B.Most companies have not made actionplans
C.The easy solutions such as job rotation have been utilized
D.Most companies tend to overestimate their results
E.Significant additional reductions cannot be expected before year 2000

IX.Results III:

1. Branches of industry:

A.Largest results in metal and plastic industry
B.Lack of knowlegde about the plan in wood industry
C.Great difficulties in basic food industry
D.Lack of recognition of the problem in service industry

X.Perspectives I:

A.The approach must so far be considered successful
B.It is possible to initiate significant improve-ments in a difficult field such as repetitive work through joint efforts by employers, unions, and the labour inspectorate
C.The freedom to select their own approach important for companies

XI.Perspectives II:

A.Company activities tend to run out
B.Additional significant reductions cannot be expected
C.A new kick off is necessary
D.It is necessary to think in large investments, research and long term solutions in order to solve the more difficult remaining problems