Search

A discussion on two field studies undertaken to test the negative effects of layoffs on the employees who are still working and the hypothesis that high-perceived control may serve as an antidote to those effects is presented. Findings of the two field studies as well as steps to be followed by the management of an organization downsizing, that heighten survivors perceived control are discussed.

Organizational downsizing was a pervasive feature of the U.S. economy during the 1980s and 1990s. A long-standing public health literature recognizes that unemployment and job loss may adversely affect health, but there has been little attention to date on the impact of downsizing upon those who survive job cuts and continue to work in downsized firms. Drawing on research with survivors of downsizing carried out by the U.S. Department of Energy, this article identifies a variety of social and psychological consequences of downsizing that fundamentally destabilize the work environment and work experience for remaining employees. Evidence from this research suggests that the work climate of the post-downsizing environment is laden with suspicion and conflict, and that survivors show feelings of demoralization, sadness, anxiety, and disorientation. A critical factor influencing these responses, we argue, is not downsizing-which is the exposure faced by those who lose their jobs-but the loss of social cohesion that downsizing ultimately represents to survivors. We conclude that addressing the trauma of downsizing for survivors will require providing employees with more genuine opportunities to participate in workplace governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bridge painters are exposed to lead during several job tasks performed during the workday, such as sanding, scraping, and blasting. After the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard was passed in 1993 to control lead exposures among construction workers including bridge painters, this study was conducted among 84 bridge painters in the New England area to determine the significant predictors of blood lead levels. Lead was measured in personal air and hand wipe samples that were collected during the 2-week study period and in blood samples that were collected at the beginning and at the end of the study period. The personal air and hand wipe data as well as personal behaviors (i.e., smoking, washing, wearing a respirator) and work site conditions were analyzed as potential determinants of blood lead levels using linear mixed effects models. Our results show that the mean air lead levels over the 2-week period were the most predictive exposure measure of blood lead levels. Other individual-level significant predictors of blood lead levels included months worked on bridge painting crews, education, and personal hygiene index. Of the site-level variables investigated, having a containment facility on site was a significant predictor of blood lead levels. Our results also indicate that hand wipe lead levels were significantly associated with higher blood lead levels at the end of the study period compared with the beginning of the study period. Similarly, smoking on site and respirator fit testing were significantly associated with higher blood lead levels at the end of the study period. This study shows that several individual-level and site-level factors are associated with blood lead levels among bridge painters, including lead exposure through inhalation and possible hand-to-mouth contact, personal behaviors such as smoking on site, respirator fit testing, and work site conditions such as the use of better containment facilities. Accordingly, reduction in blood lead levels among bridge painters can be achieved by improving these workplace practices.

This study of bridge painters working for small contractors in Massachusetts investigated the causes of elevated blood lead levels and assessed their exposure to lead. Bridge work sites were evaluated for a 2-week period during which personal and area air samples and information on work site characteristics and lead abatement methods were gathered. Short-duration personal inhalable samples collected from 18 tasks had geometric means (GM) of 3 microg/m(3) to 7286 microg/m(3). Full-shift, time-weighted average (TWA) inhalable samples (>or=6 hours) collected from selected workers and work sites had GMs of 2 microg/m(3) to 15,704 microg/m(3); 80% of samples exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 microg/m(3), on average by a factor of 30. Area inhalable samples collected from three locations ranged from 2 microg/m(3) to 40,866 microg/m(3) from inside the containment, 2 microg/m(3) to 471 microug/m(3) from a distance of <6 meters, and 2 microg/m(3) to 121 microg/m(3) from >6 meters from the containment. Seventy nine percent of the area samples from inside the containment exceeded the PEL on average by a factor of 140. Through observations of work site characteristics, opportunities for improving work methods were identified, particularly the institution of engineering controls (which were only occasionally present) and improvement in the design and construction of the containment structure. The high levels of airborne lead exposures indicate a potential for serious exposure hazard for workers and environmental contamination, which can be mitigated through administrative and engineering controls. Although these data were collected over 10 years ago, a 2005 regulatory review by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of its lead in construction standard reported that elevated lead exposures and blood lead levels, high occurrence of noncompliance with the lead standard, and nonimplementation of newer technology especially among small painting firms employing <10 workers are still widespread. As a result, the findings of this study are still quite germane even a decade after the introduction of the new OSHA standard.

A 2005 regulatory review of the lead in construction standard by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) noted that alternative pathways of exposure can be as significant as inhalation exposure and that noncompliance with the standard pertaining to hygiene facilities and practices was the second most commonly violated section of the standard. Noncompliance with provisions of the standard and unhealthy work and hygiene practices likely increase the likelihood of take-home lead via contaminated clothing, automobiles, and skin, thus contributing to elevated blood lead levels (BLL) among construction workers and their family members. We performed a cross-sectional study of bridge painters working for small contractors in Massachusetts to investigate causes of persistent elevated BLLs and to assess lead exposures. Thirteen work sites were evaluated for a 2-week period during which surface and skin wipe samples were collected and qualitative information was obtained on personal hygiene practices, decontamination and hand wash facilities, and respiratory protection programs. Results showed lead contamination on workers' skin, respirators, personal automobiles, and the decontamination unit, indicating a significant potential for take-home lead exposure. Overall, the geometric mean (GM) skin lead levels ranged from 373 microg on workers' faces at end of shift to 814 microg on hands at break time. The overall GM lead level inside respirators was 143 microg before work and 286 microg after work. Lead contamination was also present inside workers' personal vehicles as well as on surfaces inside the clean side of the decontamination unit. Review of the respiratory protection programs, work site decontamination and hand wash facilities, and personal hygiene practices indicated that these factors had significant impact on skin and surface contamination levels and identified significant opportunities for improving work site facilities and personal practices. Elevated lead exposure and BLL can be minimized by strict adherence to the OSHA provisions for functioning decontamination and hygiene facilities and healthy personal hygiene practices.

Organizational downsizing was a pervasive feature of the U.S. economy during the 1980s and 1990s. A long-standing public health literature recognizes that unemployment and job loss may adversely affect health, but there has been little attention to date on the impact of downsizing upon those who survive job cuts and continue to work in downsized firms. Drawing on research with survivors of downsizing carried out by the U.S. Department of Energy, this article identifies a variety of social and psychological consequences of downsizing that fundamentally destabilize the work environment and work experience for remaining employees. Evidence from this research suggests that the work climate of the post-downsizing environment is laden with suspicion and conflict, and that survivors show feelings of demoralization, sadness, anxiety, and disorientation. A critical factor influencing these responses, we argue, is not downsizing - which is the exposure faced by those who lose their jobs - but the loss of social cohesion that downsizing ultimately represents to survivors. We conclude that addressing the trauma of downsizing for survivors will require providing employees with more genuine opportunities to participate in workplace governance.

Public health has a long-standing interest in the adverse consequences of unemployment and job loss upon the physical and emotional health of those who lose their jobs. In recent years, the emergence of organizational downsizing as a commonplace phenomenon directs attention to an entirely new area of concern: the impact of downsizing on those who keep their jobs and continue to work in the new work environment. In this article, we examine the multi-dimensional ways in which downsizing affects the survivors of downsizing and changes their working conditions, social relationships, and emotional well-being. We draw upon qualitative results from research with survivors of downsizing undertaken by the U.S. Department of Energy to highlight survivors' own accounts of the downsizing experience. These experiences suggest that a greater voice in workplace affairs is a critical public health intervention.