Chung, J Y (1984) Comparison of safety programs and employee attitudes within university of California facilities management departments. PhD thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA.
Abstract
Facilities Management (FM) departments within the each of the nine University of California Campuses consistently account for at least one-third of all lost-time workers compensation cases annually. One might assume that little deviation in accident rates between each of the departments would exist as a result of their identical missions and similar employee exposures to physical hazards and work functions. However, extreme intercampus variability existed among FM departments. A survey questionnaire was administered to FM employees within one very high and one very low accident rate campus to attempt to explain causative factors. Significant findings (. 01 level) from this descriptive study were as follows: (1) Department Differences. (a) The low accident rate FM department had more formally written safety procedures for their employees than at the high accident rate FM department. (b) Employee and co-worker levels of safety consciousness were much higher at the low accident department than at the high one. This included hazard reporting frequency, safer behavior, and greater participation in safety planning activities. (c) Supervisor's influence on employee safety was perceived to be higher on the low accident rate FM department. This included stronger enforcement of safety equipment use, higher level of safety consciousness, and better communication network with employees. (d) Employee job satisfaction was much higher on low accident campus than high one. (e) The low accident rate FM department registered more employees with perceived good to excellent physical condition than within high one. (2) Individual Differences (Accident Free versus Accident Experiencing Employees)--Aggregate From Both Campuses. The following characteristics were found in FM employees with accident free employment records: (a) Feels less pressure on the job. (b) Receives ongoing safety training. (c) Has higher level of safety consciousness. (d) Reports hazards and injuries more frequently no matter how minor. (e) Is satisfied with job and feels university treats him very well. (f) Believes co-workers and supervisors also have high level of safety consciousness. (g) Discusses openly with co-workers their unsafe behavior. (h) Has good working rapport and communication with supervisor and co-workers and participates frequently in safety planning activities. (i) Exercises routinely and feels physical condition is very good. A majority of factors significantly affecting the accident free population similarly affected the accident free employee group on the high accident rate campus. (Abstract shortened with permission of author. )
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | communication; employee; employment; equipment; facilities management; hazards; job satisfaction; participation; population; safety; training |
| Index terms: | unsafe behaviour, injury, communication network, survey, population, workers' compensation, questionnaire, exposure, facilities management, safety programs, exercise, employment, aggregate, deviation, job satisfaction, employee attitude, safety training, supervisor, enforcement, safety equipment, variability, consciousness |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, financial risk, networking, demography, materials science, practitioner, human factors and perception, health behaviours and lifestyles, employment law, management, public and environmental health, statistical analysis, occupational health and safety management, health conditions and diseases, data collection methods, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Digital Applications, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here