Agricultural workers’ deaths account for 20% of all workplace fatalities

[News]

UNIONS have called for action as agricultural workers’ deaths now account for a fifth of all workplace fatalities — despite employing just 1 per cent of the British workforce.

Statistics released on the eve of this year’s International Workers’ Memorial Day show that there were 27 deaths in agriculture last year, making it by far the most dangerous industry in Britain.

And the fatality figures do not even include accidents related to agriculture.

In the last five years there have been 122 fatal road traffic accidents involving agricultural vehicles. More than 10 per cent of the deaths were of the driver or passengers of those vehicles.

Unite has hit out at the government, accusing it of failing to take the necessary steps to improve safety in the industry.

The union also attacked a government decision last year to not require MoT certificates for tractors, and the lax rules on who can drive one.

Legally, a 13-year-old is entitled to drive a tractor on private land, while a 16-year-old can take a driving test and drive a tractor, trailer attached, on the open road.

Read the full article here...

 

[Goweresque]

This is not very honest (its in the Morning Star so no surprise there) - the vast majority of fatalities on farms are the self employed (about two thirds), not employees, so they are not 'workers' in the sense this article means.

In the last five years there have been 122 fatal road traffic accidents involving agricultural vehicles. More than 10 per cent of the deaths were of the driver or passengers of those vehicles

And this is meaningless - just because an agricultural vehicle is involved in a RTA does not mean it was responsible for the accident, nor does a fatality in an agricultural vehicle mean that the condition of the vehicle or working conditions of the driver were responsible either. RTAs can involve other non-agricultural vehicles, who may also bear the responsibility for the accident, so bald quoting of stats is meaningless without much further analysis.

Why is this political agitprop being posted on TFF as 'news'?

 

[Skimmer]

You can manage statistics however you like but very few office workers are attacked by bulls, fall in slurry pits or get trapped in balers.
Come to think about it, it would be quite difficult to have a fatal accident working in an office.

 

[Herd]

It's quite difficult to have a fatal accident with a stapler

 

[Wooly]

Looking at the statistics, there are a high proportion of 'farmers' that have fatal accidents when they are way passed the age that most people would have retired.

Nearly 1800 die in car crashes every year in the UK. How many of those are sales reps, but I doubt that is classified as a dangerous job!?!

 

[Tim W]

137 workers killed in industry last year http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
of which 27 were in ag./forestry http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/agriculture/index.htm

That seems like a high proportion for our sector compared to say construction (which i think employs more people)?

Fatal injuries to workers by
main industry

 

[Fossil]

You can manage statistics however you like but very few office workers are attacked by bulls, fall in slurry pits or get trapped in balers.
Come to think about it, it would be quite difficult to have a fatal accident working in an office.

Paper cuts sting like hell though....

 

[RWG Contracts]

Complete waste of time that article is. I can’t believe that people who do manual work for a living suffer more accidents than those that don’t

 

[Tim W]

The point of the article is that ag/forestry/fishing has a poor H&S record
The construction industry has 6 times as many workers as ag./forestry/fishing but have the same amount of deaths

That's pretty bad in my books

 

[nancyvinci25]

The numerical figures are as expected. The lives of construction workers riskiest and engineering consulting firms have been introducing pre start health and safety reviews to prevent further mishaps while being involved in the various phases of the project.

Moreover, these deaths in the construction industry are gruesome- falling many storeys down, getting head stuck in a machine operating at high velocities or falling into a face-melting liquid. Good grief!

 

[Fallowfield]

'This is not very honest (its in the Morning Star so no surprise there) - the vast majority of fatalities on farms are the self employed (about two thirds), not employees, so they are not 'workers' in the sense this article means.'

##

Oh well, that's all right then.


They're still dead though.

 

[milkloss]

It’s simple. The stats show that there are not enough ethnic minorities employed in agriculture. If you look at the data linked it shows that the minorities work in industries that have far fewer accidents so they clearly must be more aware of hazards. Problem solved.

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures...nefits/employment/employment-by-sector/latest

 

[Fallowfield]

I just wonder if any of those dismissing, or making light of, these figures know any farmers or farm workers who have been killed at work.

Off the top of my head I can think of two farmers and one farm worker I knew who have died in work related, preventable accidents.

The root cause in each case was a cavalier attitude towards risk.

 

[PostHarvest]

I certainly agree that a "just get it done" attitude is a factor that contributes to high accident rates, but the constant pressure on farm gate prices must also play a part.
The majority of small farms are struggling to break even, paying 21st century prices for their supplies but receiving 20th century prices for their products. If the choice is to risk using a dodgy ladder or hiring in a scissor lift platform, I'm sure that the cost of transporting and hiring the platform influences the decision about which equipment to use.
The construction industry is often praised for reducing its accident rate. It's done this by employing more people e.g. banksmen, safety supervisors etc. and using specialist equipment, e.g, scaffolding, fall arrest airbags and nets, safety hats and boots and all the rest. But the big difference between construction and agriculture is that builders pass the cost of all these extra people and equipment straight on to the customer. If you have a house extension built, you expect to find scaffolding on the bill and it gets paid for so actually costs the builder nothing. He probably charges a mark-up on it. The construction industry has accepted that safety must be a priority so all reputable companies follow the same safety guidelines.
But if you sell beef cattle to an abattoir or in a market, and try to add 5p/kg to help pay for the cattle handling system that you installed to reduce the risk of working with large animals, the butcher will soon tell you where to stick your invoice. Yes, we need to improve safety awareness in agriculture, but we also need to be paid a realistic price for our produce so we can afford to implement safer working practices.

 

[Fallowfield]

'the constant pressure on farm gate prices must also play a part.'

##

The construction industry is more competitive than the agricultural industry and doesn't have the safety net of subsidies and protected markets to rely on, so that just doesn't stand up as an excuse.

The reason construction has improved is because there has been a cultural change within the industry, partly due to pressure from trade unions and the HSE.

Farmers have a belligerent, truculent attitude towards anything and anyone that might curtail them from doing just whatever they want to do. That's where the problem lies.

 

[Goweresque]

'the constant pressure on farm gate prices must also play a part.'

##

The construction industry is more competitive than the agricultural industry and doesn't have the safety net of subsidies and protected markets to rely on, so that just doesn't stand up as an excuse.

The reason construction has improved is because there has been a cultural change within the industry, partly due to pressure from trade unions and the HSE.

Farmers have a belligerent, truculent attitude towards anything and anyone that might curtail them from doing just whatever they want to do. That's where the problem lies.

There's a difference between being competitive on an even playing field and being competitive on an uneven playing field. There may be cut throat competition between construction firms, but they all operate here in the UK, under the same H&S and employment rules. So if every excavator needs a banksman, every company must account for that in their quote, they are all equal.

Whereas farming has to compete with a product produced under entirely different rules to the UK. The new potatoes shipped in from Egypt - will the workers growing and harvesting them be paid minimum wage, and have breaks every X hours, and all their machinery have PTO guards? Of course they won't yet those spuds are in the shops next to the ones produced in Pembrokeshire, where all those rules and a million other apply. The construction firms aren't competing with bridges and office blocks assembled in Egypt using cheap and abused labour and shipped whole to the UK are they?

Its a totally different business situation - farmers are primary producers facing competition from around the globe, including many producers not operating under UK standards. Construction firms are service providers that may compete among themselves but have zero direct competition from foreign companies. That allows them to pass on the cost of regulations straight to the client in a way farmers cannot. Can farmers unilaterally add £10/tonne to the world price of wheat to pay for H&S compliance? No they cannot, the buyers would merely buy foreign grain. Hence the competitive pressures on farmers are entirely different to a service industry like construction.

 

[Clive]

This is not very honest (its in the Morning Star so no surprise there) - the vast majority of fatalities on farms are the self employed (about two thirds), not employees, so they are not 'workers' in the sense this article means.



And this is meaningless - just because an agricultural vehicle is involved in a RTA does not mean it was responsible for the accident, nor does a fatality in an agricultural vehicle mean that the condition of the vehicle or working conditions of the driver were responsible either. RTAs can involve other non-agricultural vehicles, who may also bear the responsibility for the accident, so bald quoting of stats is meaningless without much further analysis.

Why is this political agitprop being posted on TFF as 'news'?

better to be aware of what people are printing about our industry that oblivious IMO

I agree its rubbish but its out there and if you don't like / think its wrong maybe we should all complain to the Morning Star and demand retraction ?

 

[yellow belly]

Of the 29 killed last year 21 are over 60

Whatever the numbers or the reasons /excuses we all need to be more aware of the danger as you only make one mistake
That is your last
If you take a 1 in 30 year risk over 30 years you have a 100 percent chance it will happen

When on loader or close tractor work with bystanders we should always assume if a person is not in view they are in danger

 

[Fallowfield]

There's a difference between being competitive on an even playing field and being competitive on an uneven playing field. There may be cut throat competition between construction firms, but they all operate here in the UK, under the same H&S and employment rules. So if every excavator needs a banksman, every company must account for that in their quote, they are all equal.

Whereas farming has to compete with a product produced under entirely different rules to the UK. The new potatoes shipped in from Egypt - will the workers growing and harvesting them be paid minimum wage, and have breaks every X hours, and all their machinery have PTO guards? Of course they won't yet those spuds are in the shops next to the ones produced in Pembrokeshire, where all those rules and a million other apply. The construction firms aren't competing with bridges and office blocks assembled in Egypt using cheap and abused labour and shipped whole to the UK are they?

Its a totally different business situation - farmers are primary producers facing competition from around the globe, including many producers not operating under UK standards. Construction firms are service providers that may compete among themselves but have zero direct competition from foreign companies. That allows them to pass on the cost of regulations straight to the client in a way farmers cannot. Can farmers unilaterally add £10/tonne to the world price of wheat to pay for H&S compliance? No they cannot, the buyers would merely buy foreign grain. Hence the competitive pressures on farmers are entirely different to a service industry like construction.

I don't accept your argument, but if it was true then the answer to the problem is clear. The HSE and the courts should hound and hammer the farming industry into compliance.

Incidentally in the three fatalities that I have personal knowledge of financial pressure was not a factor. A cavalier attitude to safety was.

 

[betweenthelines]

Too many farmers have the "H & S is too expensive" attitude

Then complain when workers have time off after an accident.