작업장 폭력에 영향을 주는 작업조건 가톨릭대 직업환경의학과 김형렬

연구배경 과거 작업장은 폭력으로 부터 안전한 공간으로 인식되었으나, 최근들어 작업장폭력이 사회적 이슈로 등장함. World Health Organization (WHO) 의 정의가 널리 받아들여짐 Physical and psychological violence –Physical violence describes the use of physical force against another person or group that results in physical, sexual, or psychological harm. –Psychological violence describes the intentional use of power against another person or group that can result in harm to physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development (Wiskow 2003). Workplace violence includes physically injuring or assaulting a person, leading to actual harm; verbal abuse, including swearing, insults, or condescending language; aggressive body language indicating intimidation, contempt, or disdain; harassment, including mobbing, bullying, and racial and sexual harassment; and the expression of intent to cause harm, including threatening behavior as well as verbal and written threats (International Labour Organization. 2003).

연구목적 유럽에서 작업장폭력관련 연구가 굉장히 주된 사회 적 이슈였던데 반해, 아시아에서는 그런 연구가 드물 었다. 또한 주로 보건의료분야에 한정된 연구들이 진행되 었다. 본 연구에서는 근로환경실태조사 자료를 이용하여 작업장폭력에 영향을 주는 직업적 위험요인을 찾고 자 하였다.

연구방법 독립변수 – 인구학적지표 ( 연령, 성별 등 ) – 사회경제적지표 ( 경제적수준, 교육수준 등 ) – 직업적요인 ( 노동시간, 교대근무, 직종 (9 개 직종 ), 사업장규모 ) 결과지표 – 작업장 폭력 – 정의 : Workplace violence in this study was assessed using six questions. The subjects were asked to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ regarding whether they had experienced 1) verbal abuse, 2) unwanted sexual attention, or 3) threats and behavior intended to humiliate the respondent over the last month, as well as 4) physical violence, 5) bullying/harassment, or 6) sexual harassment over the past 12 months. Respondents were considered targets of workplace violence if they answered ‘yes’ to any of these six items.

연구결과 Total* Verbal abuse Unwanted sexual attention Threats and humiliating behavior Physical violence Bullying/ harassment Sexual harassment Workplace violence+ p** SexMale (5.2)101 (0.5)312 (1.5)150 (0.7)59 (0.3)35 (0.2)1224 (6)0.49 Female (4.4)245 (1.7)189 (1.3)86 (0.6)67 (0.5)115 (0.8)814 (5.7) Age< (4.9)85 (1.1)108 (1.5)28 (0.4)16 (0.2)42 (0.6)465 (6.3) – (4.7)130 (1.3)155 (1.6)78 (0.8)35 (0.4)51 (0.5)583 (5.9) 40– (4.5)86 (0.9)115 (1.2)57 (0.6)38 (0.4)43 (0.5)500 (5.4) 50– (6.1)39 (0.7)90 (1.5)54 (0.9)26 (0.4)10 (0.2)385 (6.5) > (3.8)7 (0.3)34 (1.4)19 (0.8)12 (0.5)4 (0.2)107 (4.5) Education <Middle school (5.1)21 (0.5)49 (1.3)27 (0.7)17 (0.5)3 (0.1)218 (5.9)< High school (6.3)152 (1.2)208 (1.6)104 (0.8)52 (0.4)71 (0.6)940 (7.3) >College (3.8)173 (0.9)244 (1.3)104 (0.6)58 (0.3)76 (0.4)880 (4.8) Income (million won/month) < (5.1)103 (1)128 (1.2)42 (0.4)37 (0.4)53 (0.5)635 (6.1)< – (5.7)175 (1.4)221 (1.7)137 (1.1)70 (0.5)71 (0.6)889 (7) ≥ (3.6)58 (0.5)123 (1.1)41 (0.4)12 (0.1)18 (0.2)458 (4.2) Total (4.9)346 (1)501 (1.4)236 (0.7)127 (0.4)150 (0.4)2039 (5.9) * All numbers reflect weighted frequencies;. ** Obtained from chi squared test; + Respondents were considered to have experienced workplace violence if they answered ‘yes’ to any of these six items. Table 1. Prevalence of workplace violence and sociodemographic characteristics

TotalVerbal abuse Unwanted sexual attention Threats and humiliating behavior Physical violence Bullying /harassment Sexual harassment Workplace violence + p ** Employment contract Regular (3.9)219 (0.8)308 (1.2)173 (0.7)81 (0.3)83 (0.3)1229 (4.7)<.0001 Non-regular (7.7)127 (1.4)193 (2.2)63 (0.7)46 (0.5)66 (0.7)810 (9.1) JobManagers65031 (4.7)4 (0.6)16 (2.4)2 (0.3)-1 (0.2)37 (5.7)<.0001 Professionals and related (2.5)59 (0.9)73 (1.1)24 (0.3)5 (0.1)19 (0.3)241 (3.5) Clerks (3.2)72 (0.9)86 (1.1)43 (0.5)30 (0.4)42 (0.5)336 (4.1) Service (7.8)79 (2.6)77 (2.6)31 (1)18 (0.6)35 (1.2)290 (9.6) Sale Workers (5.1)59 (1.7)58 (1.6)18 (0.5)15 (0.4)26 (0.7)234 (6.6) Agricultural, Forestry & Fishery 1261 (0.5)-1 (0.8)---2 (1.3) Craft and Related Trades (5.5)7 (0.2)38 (1.2)23 (0.7)7 (0.2) 198 (6.0) Plant, Machine Operators and Assemblers (7.7)26 (0.7)75 (2)61 (1.6)17 (0.5)12 (0.3)310 (8.3) Elementary Occupations (6.4)40 (0.8)75 (1.4)35 (0.7) 8 (0.2)388 (7.4) Working time (hr/week) < (3.6)157 (0.8)185 (1)92 (0.5)53 (0.3)78 (0.4)801 (4.3)< – (3.9)32 (0.9)45 (1.3)17 (0.5)18 (0.5)16 (0.5)163 (4.7) 49– (6.5)115 (1.2)175 (1.8)90 (0.9)44 (0.5)48 (0.5)750 (7.8) ≥ (8.7)41 (1.3)97 (3.1)37 (1.2)13 (0.4)7 (0.2)325 (10.3) Company size (number of workers) 1– (4.2)76 (1)78 (1)42 (0.5)25 (0.3)38 (0.5)405 (5.1)0.02 5– (5.1)189 (1.1)235 (1.4)155 (0.9)62 (0.4)72 (0.4)1069 (6.2) 50– (5.2)57 (1)114 (2)28 (0.5)22 (0.4)27 (0.5)368 (6.3) ≥ (4.4)12 (0.5)54 (2.1)8 (0.3)9 (0.4)6 (0.2)122 (4.8) Shift workNo (4.4)305 (1)400 (1.3)178 (0.6)102 (0.3)133 (0.4)1661 (5.3)<.0001 Yes (9.5)41 (1.2)101 (2.9)58 (1.7)25 (0.7)17 (0.5)378 (11.0) Total (4.9)346 (1)501 (1.4)236 (0.7)127 (0.4)150 (0.4)2039 (5.9) * All the numbers are weighted frequencies; ** Obtained from chi squared test; + Respondents were considered to have experienced workplace violence if they answered ‘yes’ to any of these six items. Table 2. Prevalence of workplace violence and work-related factors

Adjusted OR*95% C.I Employment contract Regular1.000 Non-regular –2.728 Job Managers –3.177 Professionals1.000 Clerks –1.665 Service –3.380 Sale Workers –2.142 Agricultural, Forestry & Fishery –1.517 Craft and Related Trades –2.141 Plant, Machine Operators and Assemblers –2.575 Elementary Occupations –2.312 Soldiers –2.543 Night shift work No1.000 Yes –2.015 Hours worked per week < – – – –3.836 ≥ –4.698 Company size (No. of workers) 1– – – – –2.150 ≥ –1.904 Table 3. Odds ratios for various work conditions and workplace violence obtained from multiple linear regression models

고찰 유럽과 비교했을때 매우 낮은 작업장폭력 경험율 폭력이라고 인지하는 사회적문화의 차이 장시간노동, 야간근무, 서비스직종 등에서 두드러 진 차이 보임

제한점 작업장 폭력경험률이 매우 낮게 나온점. under-reporting 의 가능성 있음 질적연구의 필요성 있음 그러나 non-differential manner 예측됨 단면연구로서 인과성 보여줄수는 없음

결론 아시아에서 진행된 이 주제와 관련된 가장 큰 자료를 이용한 연구임. 그동안의 연구가 주로 병원산업에 국한된 연구였던데, 반해, 전제 업종을 대상으로, 대표성있는 자료를 이용한 연구를 수행함. In summary, our data support a substantial effect of work-related factors, such as long working hours and night shift work, on workplace violence. It will be important to consider these factors when crafting interventions to curb workplace violence, and elucidating these risk factors may facilitate the identification of high- risk groups that could benefit from prevention programs.