As part of the examination in the social affairs committee of the bill to strengthen prevention in occupational health, the deputy Gisèle Biémouret intervened, for the Socialists and related group
“Your proposed law” to strengthen prevention in occupational health “, reform the service offer and the governance of occupational health services, largely taking over the national inter-professional agreement on health at work signed on 10 Last December. It also aims to improve the medical monitoring of employees and the prevention of professional disinsertion, “acknowledged in the preamble the elected representative of the Gers. But the member did not fail to issue caveats. “Far from the more daring proposals that we could have expected, you are satisfied with a very measured governance reform of which we do not really perceive the contribution, a slightly reinforced training obligation and a few additional provisions without The question of means is never addressed. Yet, in a world of work confronted with a health issue which strikes it today and which effectively reveals the difficulties of the occupational health system, we can only deplore the lack of ambition and notable progress on a certain number of essential points. I want to speak first of all that concerns the primary prevention of socio-professional risks. The text does not, for example, provide any answer on the monitoring of workers exposed to chemical risks, the fight against the crisis of vocations in occupational medicine, the action plans that could be implemented in sectors where the number of occupational accidents is t important. However, the stakes are massive and the orders of magnitude on this subject are edifying: 500 to 600 deaths in the workplace, 30,000 permanent disabilities and 600,000 work stoppages per year. Thus, article 3 which creates the prevention passport is a cause for concern, including for the unions signatory to the agreement which sees it more as a safe-conduct for employers to relinquish their responsibilities in terms of safety at the workplace. reason that the worker has been trained. Likewise, the text does not propose anything either to facilitate the process of recognition of occupational diseases, nothing on the support of employees recognized as unfit for work and whose company cannot reclassify them, nothing for the support of the less workers. more precarious, inter-contract or looking for jobs, little for people with disabilities or sick, nothing on psychosocial risks, the resources of the labor inspectorate, etc. ”
Beyond the differences in approach and the effort expected for the most precarious workers, Gisèle Biémouret questions the preventive virtues of the text. “The question we must ask ourselves is whether this text will really be able to develop a culture of prevention and permanently reduce the risks to the health of employees due to work. For the moment, we do not ‘are not convinced of that.
–
