Disability of enterprise employees in Chelyabinsk region of Russia due to poor environmental conditions

. The research is based on analysis of the survey for identification of reasons for injuries and following disability of staff which was organized in November and December 2020. Experts-respondents were 415 employees of 258 enterprises and organization in Chelyabinsk region. As the main reason for disability was named mental outside of work injuries.The second reason is physical outside of work injuries. The 3 rd place in the list is physical injuries at work. The fourth reason is mental injuries at work. Thus, the working activity of respondents is 2.4 times less traumatic than outside of work activity. Experts named the reduction of attentiveness as the most valuable reason of injuries and following disability (24.3%). Then follow the omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality (19.2%), the omission of control over employees’ behavior (19.1%), risky be havior of employees at work (18.6%), problems of the legislative framework for safety and health (8.7%), no-fault incidents (5.8%).


Introduction
The Chelyabinsk region is the industrial region in Russia and for that territory are relevant problems which are related to employees' disability. Understanding of the occupational safety and health in the region corresponds to global approaches that «Occupational health differs from occupational safety in that the duration of the impact that will arise, in which occupational health involves long-term exposure (routine activity) to hazardous condition while occupational safety deals with short-term exposure (accident or routine activity) with acute effects on human. Occupational accidents and illnesses also incurred two million deaths and decrease of 4 % Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year globally» [2].
Specialists name different factors as reasons for the disability. According to a theoretical model of occupational injuries, «various factors such as poor work conditions, tasks involving exposure to hazards, employment status (working part time or overtime), and individual characteristics such as demographics and the presence of a chronic disease, all combine to increase the risk of occupational injuries» [1].
pp. 20-21, 25). Canadian studies have also shown mental health problems to be a significant source of work disability (Dewa et al., 2004, Gilmour and Patten, 2007, Park, 2008, and several studies have confirmed that mental health problems are attributable in whole or in part to stressful working conditions (Gilmour and Patten, 2007). In short, psychosocial hazards, including harassment, are clearly associated with disability and economic losses for individuals and organisations.» [4].
«Although occupational injury rates are on the decline, recovery from an injury, including time to return to work, remains a significant public health issue. Time away from the workplace not only affects a person's economic, psychological, and physical wellbeing, but also the economic and social health of society» [9][10][11].
«There is a very high rate of return to work following traumatic injury. Reduced return to work was seen in workers who were older, highlighting the need to enhance opportunities for re-education or retraining. Greater likelihood of returning to work was associated with lower symptoms of anxiety, depression and PTSD, which were all highly correlated. Perceived injustice significantly mediated the relationship between compensable injury and return to work, highlighting the need to address these psychological and functional outcomes synergistically to improve recovery» [12].
«At 3 months after the injury, nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents had returned to work. Of these, 83% were back full-time and 80% were back to their former job. Only 6% had different jobs, 6% had similar jobs, and the remaining 8% had a modified former job. Almost all of those who had returned to work (92%) were with the same employer as at the time of injury. Of those who had not returned to work, one-third (33%, 12 of 36) had made an attempt to return to work» [13].

Methods
Data were drawn from empirical research of causes of occupational injuries and the following disability, which was made in form of survey which was organized in November and December 2020. Experts-respondents were 415 employees of 258 enterprises and organization in Chelyabinsk region (random sample). The chosen sample with the size of population for sample surveys is 1620 people provide an error 5.0%. 55.4% of respondents are male, 44.6% -female. Respondents aged between 18-30 were 43.9%, respondents between 31 and 40 years accounted for 34.2 percent of all, 41-50 years -14.5%, over the age of 50 -7.5%. Based on level of education respondents were divided into groups, and 36.1% respondents are with secondary education, 56.4% are with university education, 7.5% respondents are without professional education. According to work experience, the respondents were distributed as follows: less than 2 years -20.5%; 2-5 years old -26.0%; 6-10 years old -24.3%; 11-15 years old -14.7%; over 15 years -14.5%.

Results
Respondents were asked to evaluate the impact and indicate the "weight" (in %%) of the causes of physical injuries at work, based on the list in the questionnaire. As a result, their answers were distributed as follows (Table 1): As the most valuable reason of injuries at work was named the 'The reduction of attentiveness' (24.3%). Then follow the omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality (19.2%), the omission of control over employees' behavior (19.1%), risky behavior of employees at work (18.6%), problems of the legislative framework for safety and health (8.7%), no-fault incidents (5.8%). Other reasons were mentioned by 4.3% respondents.
The following comments were made by the respondents, for specific reasons. According to specific components 'The reduction of attentiveness' there is more or less noticeable difference in the most valuable factor of 'alcohol and narcotic consequences'' (5.8% -of respondents without injuries against 4.9% of respondents who are with it). Analyzing of other factors shows that there is practically no difference between them ('physical overwork' 4.9%; 'mental overwork' 4.3%; 'diverting the attention by others' 3.5%; 'monotonous of the work' 2.4%; 'lack of personal experience of injuries' 2.4%; 'other reasons' 1.3%). According to specific components 'The omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality' there is more or less noticeable difference in factors of 'lack of high technology hardware and instruments' (5.6% -of respondents without injuries against 6.0% of respondents who are with it) and 'lack of controlling resources (people, technical means of verification)' (4.4% of respondents without injuries against 4.9% of respondents who are with it). Analyzing of other factors shows that there is less valuable difference between them or no difference at all ('lack of supervisors' qualification' 4.4%; 'inefficiency of controlling processes' 2.7%; 'other reasons' 1.7%). The most noticeable difference is in the factor of 'lack of opportunity for the objective assessment of an employee's health' -3.4% -of respondents without injuries against 4.0% of respondents who are with it. Analyzing of other factors shows that there is less valuable difference between them or no difference at all ('lack of controlling resources (people, technical means of verification)' 4.6%; 'inefficiency of controlling processes' 4.1%; 'other reasons' 1.7%). According to specific components 'The risky behavior of employees at work' there is more or less noticeable difference only in the most valuable factor of 'pressure from managers' (4.2% -of respondents without injuries against 3.7 of respondents who are with it). Analyzing of other factors shows that there is less valuable difference between them or no difference at all ('willingness to save time, money, force or valuable materials' 3.0%; 'willingness to earn more' 2.8%; 'following values (installations)' 1.9%; 'intentional violation of safety test equipment functioning' 1.8%; 'lack of personal experience of injuries' 1.4%; 'other reasons' 1.0%). Physical injuries at work are not the only reason for disability, that's other reasons also ware analyzed why during the research. The main reason of the disability between respondents is 'mental injuries outside work': 3756 days of disability in sample and 9.1 days per one respondent in average. There are taking place events, as a result 'Everything slipped from respondents' hands'.
The next in the list are 'physical injuries outside work' (2030 days of disability and 4.9 days per one respondent).
At number 3 on the list are 'physical injuries at work' (1340 days of disability and 3.2 days per one respondent).
The 4th are 'mental injuries at work' (1073 days of disability and 206 days per one respondent).
Thus, labor activity of respondents is 2.4 less traumatic than their ordinary activity outside work: (1340 + 1073) 2413 days of disability because of injuries at work against (2030 + 3756) 5786 days of disability because of injuries outside work. At the same time, people, who have physical injuries at work, much often mentioned the existence of mental injuries than respondents without injuries.
The share of respondents with injuries rises with increasing of work experience. Table 7. Shares of respondents, who have received and who haven't received injuries with following temporary disability, because of increasing of work experience.
Male respondents are injuring to temporary disability more often female respondents. Table 9. Share of respondents, who have received and who haven't received injuries with following temporary disability, based on their gender. There is no valuable difference in group without disability because of occupational injuries between male and female respondents (50.4% and 49.6%), but the amount of male respondents is doubled in comparison with female respondents in the group who experienced disability (63.5% and 36.5%).

Discussion
As the most valuable reason of injuries at work was named the 'The reduction of attentiveness' (24.3%). Then follow the omission of technical control over the content of E3S Web of Conferences 258, 08005 (2021) UESF-2021 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125808005 materials, equipment performance and tool quality (19.2%), the omission of control over employees' behavior (19.1%), risky behavior of employees at work (18.6%), problems of the legislative framework for safety and health (8.7%), no-fault incidents (5.8%). Other reasons were mentioned by 4.3% respondents.
The content of 'The omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality' (total is 19.2%) is following: 'lack of high technology hardware and instruments' -5.8%; 'lack of controlling resources (people, technical means of verification)' -4.6%; 'lack of supervisors' qualification' -4.4%; 'inefficiency of controlling processes' -2.7%; 'other reasons' -1.7%.
The content of 'The omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality' (total is 19.2%): 'lack of high technology hardware and instruments' -5.8%; 'lack of controlling resources (people, technical means of verification)' -4.6%; 'lack of supervisors' qualification' -4.4%; 'inefficiency of controlling processes' -2.7%; 'other reasons' -1.7%.
The content of 'The omission of control over employees' behavior' (total is 19.1%) is following: 'lack of controlling resources (people, technical means of verification)' -5.1%; 'lack of supervisors' qualification' -4.6%; 'the inefficiency of control under working processes' -4.1%; 'lack of opportunity for the objective assessment of an employee's health' -3.6%; 'other reasons' -1.7%.
The main of respondent's disability 'mental injuries outside work': 3756 days of disability in sample and 9.1 days per one respondent in average. The next in the list are 'physical injuries outside work' (2030 days of disability and 4.9 days per one respondent).
At number 3 on the list are 'physical injuries at work' (1340 days of disability and 3.2 days per one respondent).
The 4th are 'mental injuries at work' (1073 days of disability and 206 days per one respondent).
Thus, the working activity of respondents is 2.4 times less traumatic than their outwork activity: 1340 + 1073 =) 2413 days of disability at work against (2030 + 3756 =) 5786 days of disability out of work. At the same time, people, who have physical injuries at work, much often mentioned the existence of mental injuries than respondents without injuries.
The share of respondents who were injured is increasing with the rising of work experience. The amount of respondents with less than 2 years of work experience and who haven't missed workdays because of disability is more than respondents who had disability (26.6% against 10.7%); with 2-5 years -31.3% against 17.6%. Between respondents with 6-10 years of work experience the distribution changes to the opposite: 21.5% against 28.9%; with 11-15 years -12.5% against 18.2%; but the work experience over 15 years leads to the triple difference (8.2% against 24.5%). Male respondents are injuring to temporary disability more often female respondents.

Conclusion
Sorting of significances of reasons to injuries at work to temporary disability in decreasing order is defined: the reduction of attentiveness of staff; the omission of technical control over the content of materials, equipment performance and tool quality; the omission of control over employees' behavior; the risky behavior of employees at work; problems of the legislative framework for safety and health; no-fault incidents. However, the main reason for disability is mental injuries which were the result of activity outside of work, and then follow physical injuries outside of work, physical injuries at work, and mental injuries at work. The labor activity of staff is 2.4 times less traumatic than their nonworking activity.