Day Laborer Project Occupational Health Internship Gabriel Rivera and Mona Christine Lee UCLA LOSH 05 August 2005
Jun 12, 2015
Day Laborer Project Occupational Health Internship
Gabriel Rivera and Mona Christine LeeUCLA LOSH
05 August 2005
Objectives Gain a better understanding of day laborers by learning from
the workers and literature (demographics, cultural proclivities, policies and politics).
• Identify health and safety risks associated with the work of Day Laborers.
• Create a culture of health and safety in the workplace.
Background of Day Laborer
UCLA Center for Study of Urban Poverty’s random sample of 481 workers (Valenzuela, 1999):
• Day laborers overwhelmingly Latino (predominantly from Mexico)• Fairly young and are either recent (less than one year) arrivals in
the United States or have been in this country for a long period of time (10+ years).
Background of Laborer Continued…
• Routine abuse of day laborers at the work place. – Non-payment of wages – Breach of agreed payment– No breaks or water at the work site– Unsafe or hazardous working conditions
Background of Laborer Continued…
• Richardson (2004), Mexican immigrants were at higher risk of non-fatal workplace injury or illness than any other gender/race/ ethnicity group, 82% greater that of all workers.
• Fabrega V, Starkey S. (2001), found that although Latinos made up less than16% of the construction workforce, they suffered 23.5% of fatal injuries (2001).
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2001), report that in areas where they have implemented aggressive construction safety training programs among Hispanic workers, combined with increased compliance inspections, fatality rates have declined significantly.
IDESPCA Community Job Centers
Nationalities of Day Laborers at the Hollywood Community Job Center
35%
32%
17%
15%
1%
MexicoGuatemalaEl SalvadorHondurasCuba
Internal IDEPSCA Data, April 2005
Type of Employment
83%
5%
4%3%
3% 2%
General Labor
Painting
[1]Other
Carpentry
Cleaning
Gardening
Plumbing
Internal IDEPSCA Data, April 2005
Type of Employer
87%
10%3%
Sub-Contractor orContractor
Business Owner
Homeowner/Individual
Internal IDEPSCA Data, April 2005
Methods
Based on Grounded Theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
• Literature review• Assembly meetings and training session• Health and Safety presentation, ie. Risk map• Ethnographic observation• Fourteen in-depth conversations or interviews• Two worksite visits (Hollywood Hills and Beverly
Hills)
Health and Safety Presentation:Risk Map of Gardening Site
Findings
Examples of Past Injuries
• Allergic skin reaction • Blunt trauma to the head, ie. metal ladder, large
drill• Lower back pain and general musculoskeletal
pain• Eye and respiratory irritation from chemicals
used in roofing and painting• Fall from rooftop resulting in hand surgery
WORKERS RECOGNIZE MOST HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS
– Workers identified the following as risks:• Poor quality equipment, ie. skill saw without
plastic guard, cheap masks.• Working with hazardous material, ie. asbestos
from insulation and lead from paint in old building, poison oak.
– Extreme weight lifting, ie. cement bags, refrigerators, washing machines.
MOST WORKERS ARE NOT PROVIDED WITH PERSONAL
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE)
• Workers are familiar with the safety equipment utilized in the workplace, but often not supplied or used.
• Workers use inventive methods to protect themselves, ie. vasoline and a wet towel.
WORKERS ARE NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE INTRODUCTION OR
ORIENTATION
• Workers are lucky to have five minute orientation or introduction:– May attain employer contact information in
case of emergency.– May be warned of safety hazards
• But for the most part, they only:– Know name of employer– Receive additional information if employer
likes or values them.
A Case Study: Rodolfo
• Jalisco, Mexico• Primary employment: Painter• Injury: General eye irritation from
paint exposure • Aware of the health hazards
associated with lead containing paint, but selectively uses PPE – sanding down a small area of paint
does not require a mask
• He carries his own PPE in a backpack
• Small damp rag and Vaseline • Amber, the exception amongst
employers
Limitations/Lessons Learned
• Project time constraint• Qualitative/Case studies• Trust issue• Limited work site visits
Project Successes
• Establishing rapport allowed for a better understanding of the occupational health and safety risks of Day Laborers.
• Created an awareness amongst Day Laborers of health and safety in the work place.
Recommendations
• A mentoring network can be developed to promote career development and prevent further exploitation
• Interactive workshops on injury prevention • Qualitative/quantitative study
– Why do some Day Laborers report and others do not?– At what point do workers decide to protect their
health?– How do Day Laborers prioritize their own health at the
work place?– How does access to health care services determine
utilization of services?
Acknowledgements
• IDEPSCA
• Linda Delp, Lizette Paredes, Deogracia Cornelio, UCLA Labor Occupational Health (UCLA-LOSH)
• Suzan Luu, SoCalCOSH
• Victor Narro, UCLA Labor Center
• Hollywood Community Job Center
• Day laborer participants
• OHIP team