Transition to the forced telework – a challenge for trade unions identified by the study on working life with COVID-19 in Latvia

1Introduction

In Latvia, the first emergency state due to the COVID-19 pandemic was in force between 12 March and 9 June 2020 when the full lockdown was not implemented. During this period telework was only strongly advised, but not required by the government decisions.

In the COVID-19 situation, the transition to telework in Latvia was massive and more forced than voluntary. This forced form of telework is fundamentally distinct from voluntary telework, e.g., there was a lack of possibility and time for the employers to install equipment for their workers to work remotely and companies were not allowed to send occupational health and safety experts to check working conditions in the teleworkers’ homes [1, 2]. Although telework increased slowly in the 10 years before the Covid-19 outbreak, it was mostly as an occasional work pattern [3]. Therefore, shift to telework at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic was a huge challenge for employers who had to care for the sustainability of their business and also to fulfill their legal obligations related to ensuring healthy and safe working conditions. When the office worker is working in the premises of the company, many of the workplace hazards are managed through workplace risk assessment procedures and infrastructure support as the company purchases and arranges the computer workstations, and also invites occupational health and safety experts and/or ergonomists to improve working conditions and train workers [2, 4]. However, in the home office teleworkers typically set up their own workstations without assistance and training, sometimes even on coffee tables, ironing boards, kitchen tables, or old desks [4]. In addition, they usually use handheld devices for prolonged duration [5].

In general, there is a well-established association between the presence of organized worker representation in the company and the level of compliance with safety and health at work within the particular company –companies with trade unions perform better in occupational health and safety [6]. Therefore, we assumed that companies with well-established worker representation should perform better in transition to healthy and safe telework if compared with companies where there is no formal worker representation. To check this hypothesis, we decided to focus our research on the role of company trade unions and worker representatives on the implementation of healthy and safe telework arrangements during the 1st emergency state when, according to the data of the Central Statistical Bureau, approximately one-fifth of workers in Latvia were working remotely - in April –22.0%, in May –18.2% and in June –15.5% [7–9].

2Theoretical background

Trade unions have been involved in the activities related to telework at the European level already for more than 20 years [10]. In 1996 trade unions have risen concern that telework might be a problem and a challenge for trade unions due to the difficulties of organizing and representing teleworkers who are located in many different workplaces outside of the company premises as union organization within the company has traditionally been based around the centralized workplace and the working principles of the union members are focused on the coming-together of members in person, e.g. using meetings at workplaces or branch offices, conference seminars [11, 12]. Telework is opposite to the traditional way trade unions work –telework can be defined as “organization and/or execution of tasks performed away from the central offices or production facilities of organizations for a certain period in pre-established work schedules. To this end, information and communication technologies are used to establish communication between employees and to respond to the demands of the organization remotely” [13]. If, during early stages of telework, the work place in most cases was located at home, then the development of telework lead to a very broad term –“working anytime anywhere” [14]. In 2010, the opinion of the trade union on telework could be characterized as cautious support –from one side trade unions acknowledged new opportunities for teleworkers in terms of their work-life balance and the potential to contribute to equal opportunities for men and women, from the other side they expressed concerns over isolation, working hours and schedules [12]. Besides, a review article on telework during COVID-19 has mentioned that one of the disadvantages of telework is greater difficulties in participating in trade union activities [15].

The most visible action of trade unions concerning telework was the signing of the voluntary Framework Agreement on Telework in 2002 (further in the text referred to as the Teleworking Agreement) [10]. The choice of implementation method of the Teleworking Agreement by the European countries was different and mainly determined by the specific policy type involved in the Teleworking Agreement, and the power struggle between unions, employers, and the state [16]. As for Latvia, on 12 April 2006, social partners concluded a social partner agreement committing the parties to implement the Teleworking Agreement [17]. Therefore, one can assume that some 15 years later companies with established social dialogue which is based on the cooperation of trade unions and employers should be better performing in telework than companies which do not have formal worker representation through trade unions.

When analyzing the topics which had been on the agenda of the trade unions during the pandemic caused by COVID-19, telework is not widely covered. According to the information published on the website of the European Trade Union Confederation, “national trade unions across Europe are working hard to achieve agreements between unions and employers (and governments) to deal with the serious economic impacts on workers and enterprises” [18]. These topics covered measures to save jobs, to protect wages, to have decent and fair work, to avoid cuts to sick pay, to restore free movement, to protect posted workers, to enforce the right of wages, etc. [18, 19]. Other trade unions focused on COVID-19 threats from poor or lacking personal protective equipment, unsafe working practices, knowledge gaps and offered solutions for health care, social care, production, and service workers in “essential” occupations [19]. In addition, trade unions in the EU were investing substantial effort in negotiations on the classification of the COVID-19 virus [20].

We identified some cases when there have been activities related to COVID-19 and telework and trade unions, however, these examples are more related to simplification of the procedure of telework arrangements not favorable to trade unions. For example, in Italy companies and workers were allowed to arrange teleworking without a prior agreement with trade unions [21]. Another topic concerning telework for trade unions was linked to the new EU regulation on the rights of teleworkers to disconnect - however, this topic was not in the focus of the 1^st wave of COVID-19 pandemic –the period covered by our research [22].

To identify if telework was the topic addressed by the Latvian national trade unions during the 1^st wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we reviewed the website of the Latvian Free Trade Union Confederation. We identified that already on 17 March 2020 (the 3^rd working day after the emergency state was announced), the headquarters invited worker representatives to initiate communication with employers related to telework with the focus on two main aspects –access of workers to the infrastructure (e.g., computer, printer, access to databases of the company) and compensation of additional costs arising from telework (e.g., internet) [23]. Occupational health and safety aspects related to telework were not addressed in this communication.

To sum it up, the statement of 1996 that “the development of the Internet offers powerful new opportunities for unions to reach members and potential members with access to new technology” has turned out to be very true as technologies have developed rapidly and created not only opportunities but also challenges [11].

3Research methodology

4Results and discussion

The results of our analysis show that the odds of all analyzed health problems were increased in workers who reported being from companies with trade unions. A significantly higher increase was observed for having sore eyes (OR = 2.96, 95% CI 1.84–4.77 after adjustment for gender and age). Slightly lower, but also significantly increased odds were identified for having anxiety in respondents from companies with trade unions (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.44–3.67). Among the respondents who reported having trade unions, the odds of pain for longer than three days was also increased, however, this association was weaker, but still significant (OR = 1.77, 95% C1.08–2.90, for details see Table 1).

Most probably such results can be explained by the fact that there was a significantly lower percentage of workers in companies with trade unions who reported teleworking experience before the COVID-19 pandemic (37.4% nTU versus 18.1% wTU). It has already been reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic main difficulties experienced those teleworkers who started work from home (meaning those who did not have previous teleworking experience) and previous experience with telework increases also organizational readiness for telework adoption [27, 28]. This can result in more stress, problems with private-work life management because of the same home environment and health problems related to poor ergonomics [27].

When looking at the measures provided by the employer to improve working conditions for teleworkers, respondents from companies with no trade unions more often had mentioned that their employer had identified the teleworking conditions (16.4% wTU versus 24.0% nTU) (for details see Table 2). The statement “My employer identified conditions where I am teleworking” was used to avoid complicated terms like workplace risk assessment that might not be understandable to the respondents. Such statement covers advice given to employers by researchers like “Make sure working space has a comfortable chair, good illumination and ventilation and adequate accessories (such as a good internet connection and microphone and camera)” [29]. Although these results of our analysis are not statistically significant, they show the tendency that companies with trade unions less often comply with legal acts on performing a workplace risk assessment to all workplaces (including teleworking ones).

Provision of information for teleworkers on different aspects of such work can improve working conditions [15, 30]. In our study workers from companies with no trade unions reported better performance of their employers in advising workers on home office ergonomics (21.2% wTU versus 28.1% nTU), but companies with trade unions more often provided advice on the use of new IT technologies (like Zoom, MSTeams) (43.4% wTU versus 34.8% nTU) and on ways how to do the particular job from distance (41.3% wTU versus 28.1% nTU). In addition, IT support to adapt the computer for distance work was more often reported by the respondents from companies without trade unions (56.6% wTU versus 60.9% nTU). In general, such findings can be explained by the invitation of headquarters of national trade unions to initiate communication with employers on the access of workers to the infrastructure (e.g., computer, printer, access to databases of the company) and not on provision any training or technical support [23]. As company trade unions were not invited to discuss with their employer health and safety arrangements of working conditions, we suppose that it has resulted in not covering topics related to ergonomics in home offices in communication between employers and worker representatives. Most probably, this can be described as a strategic communication mistake of headquarters of the national trade unions as it has been already reported that provision of information through worker training and information programs on health and safety risks and hazards, the home office environment, equipment, ergonomics, and stress, as well as other mental health issues, can result in fewer health effects [15, 30]. One of the reasons for not paying attention to such specific questions as health and safety in teleworking arrangements might be the power struggles between employers, unions, and the state [16].

Another focus for communication advised by the headquarters of national trade unions was the compensation of additional costs arising from telework (e.g., internet) [29]. However, our findings showed that more respondents from companies with trade unions reported buying a new computer (16.7% wTU versus 7.4% nTU) and head-phones (14.4% wTU versus 5.3% nTU) which means that more persons in companies with trade unions had to invest their own finances to be able to perform their work and earn their salary. This might be due to the fact that workers from companies with trade unions also reported less cases when they were provided with a computer and other IT equipment (53.4% wTU versus 57.9% nTU). According to our understanding, these are the most surprising results of our research. In addition, it should also be pointed out that the compensation of the costs arising from telework (e.g., internet, electricity) was more often mentioned by respondents from companies without trade unions (6.8% nTU versus 1.1% wTU), and even bigger difference was observed among respondents who have selected the answer “It was needed, but not provided” (40.0% wTU versus 31.6% nTU).

If analyzed other preventive measures provided by the employer, it is important to mention that also online team-building events (breakfast, lunch, games, etc.) and training in online management skills of direct supervisors was less frequently reported in companies with trade unions (for online team-building events –6.1% wTU versus 11.0% nTU, for training in online management skills of direct supervisors –13.2% wTU versus 17.9% nTU). In addition, results of respondents reporting not knowing if their direct supervisor had been trained in online management skills (45.9% wTU versus 29.4% nTU) raises questions about internal communication in the companies with trade unions. This topic should be addressed in future research. Probably, problems related to internal communication with companies can explain the difference in the results showing that more teleworkers in companies with trade unions felt that they needed training on stress management, but it was not provided (31.8% wTU versus 27.1% nTU).

The above-described results show that most of the preventive measures were more frequently reported by teleworkers from companies with no trade unions. When trying to explain such results, we identified that it has been already reported that previous experience with telework increases organizational readiness for telework adoption [28]. We believe that lack of previous experience of telework in companies with trade unions (18.1% wTU versus 37.4% nTU) is the main reason why these companies in several aspects managed shift to telework worse than the companies without trade unions and thus workers in these companies report more frequent such health problems as sore eyes, pain longer than three days and anxiety with new work and living environment. However, in this context, another question arises –if trade unions had been dealing with different aspects related to telework for more than 20 years, why the companies with trade unions or other elected worker representatives had not implemented teleworking arrangements already before the COVID-19 pandemic [10].

The research method used in our study did not allow to answer the above-mentioned question directly, but we tried to give some hypothetical explanations. Firstly, the age distribution of trade union members is not representative to the general population and even less to the age distribution of teleworkers [31]. In general, in case if telework is voluntary (which was the case before the COVID-19 pandemic), teleworkers are reported to be younger than their office-based colleagues, but trade unions are having problems attracting younger people already for years [15, 31]. The proportion of elderly people involved in trade unions is higher than in the average working population and, therefore, members do not longer represent the average workers [31]. The results of the worker survey carried out in Latvia in 2018 within the national study “Work conditions and risks in Latvia” show that the prevalence of having trade unions in their company increases along with the increase of the age of the respondents (workers) [32].

Secondly, it might be that trade unions at the company level do not follow the agenda of the headquarters of the national trade unions.

Thirdly, there have already been discussions that at least part of the workers believe that trade unions do not know the real problems of workers. For example, the results of the above-mentioned worker survey carried out as part of the national study “Work conditions and risks in Latvia” show that only 36.4% of respondents in Latvia fully or partly agree with the statement that trade unions are aware of the real problems of workers (25.3% –in the age group 18–24 and 41.5% –in the age group 55–74) [32].

Fourthly, worker involvement in trade unions, as well as the prevalence of telework, varies across sectors and occupations [3, 12]. For example, in Latvia, the results from the worker survey in 2018 show that, in general, 23.0% of respondents have specified that there is a trade union in their company, but the highest prevalence of existence of trade unions in their companies was reported in education (64.2%) [32]. Although teachers in Latvia already before COVID-19 were doing some work from home, including one with computers (e.g., getting ready for classes, checking tests or homework, filling in educational e-systems with tasks and scores), having online classes was something unbelievable at least in Latvia before 12 March 2020 and required new skills and technologies for teachers.

Fifthly, during the negotiation process of the Teleworking Agreement use of ‘soft law’ was chosen In Latvia as it was seen as appropriate for such subjects as telework, which often concern the development of new practices and tools at the company level rather than protecting workers’ basic rights [16]. However, when analyzing different approaches at the national level, for countries with low trade union density and weak social dialogue (e.g., Hungary) legislation had appeared to be the right instrument [16]. Bearing in mind that Latvia and Hungary have some similarities in the development in the last century which has influenced the work of trade unions ‘soft law’, probably trade unions have not made serious steps to implement the Teleworking Agreement as it is not legally binding.

Sixthly, as telework had not been high enough on the agenda of the trade unions (both company level and national level), no practical tools to support worker representatives in the changing working life and new ways of work of trade unions have been developed which has become a challenge already during last 20 years [11].

5Limitations

Our research has also some research limitations, including the use of a non-probability sampling method to quickly gather data. Typically, among limitations of this sampling method access to the internet and low digital literacy are mentioned, however, workers without internet cannot telework therefore we do not believe this has much influence as the study population is teleworkers. The questionnaire was available only in Latvian, which can reduce the participation rate of Russian-speaking persons. Taking into account that in most cases teleworkers belong to administrative workers who have to organize documentation in Latvian, we believe that the influence of this limitation should be low.

A non-probability sampling method we used to gather survey data is another limitation of the study. The advantage of this method is the possibility to quickly gather information from respondents which was important because of the implementation requirements of the project “Life with COVID-19: Evaluation of Overcoming the Coronavirus Crisis in Latvia and Recommendations for Societal Resilience in the Future”. To overcome this limitation at least partly and to obtain data that is representative of the demographic profile of the working population in Latvia, the sample was weighted based on gender and age. We were not able to weight data in terms of education or work experience as such population estimates were not available from the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia for the study period.

6Conclusions

Results of the survey show that companies where formal social dialogue exists through trade unions as worker representatives were less ready and less flexible for forced transition to teleworking. These results also contradict the traditional approach of trade unions as promoting factor for a healthy and safe working environment and the available data that trade unions have been active in social dialogue on teleworking at the European level. It seems that at least in Latvia, there are no major changes in activities of trade unions related to telework since 1996 when challenges related to telework had been reported. This means that the capacity of trade unions concerning telework should be risen to make them able to protect the rights of teleworkers in the situation when telework as a permanent type of work arrangement will be more and more adopted by companies after the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is the 1^st study to report data on the low role of trade unions in the promotion of healthy and safe telework in forced telework conditions in Latvia. The results support earlier studies that trade unions might not have sufficient experience in the management of social dialogue when trade union members are performing their job outside of the premises. It appears that although trade unions have been working with topics related to telework for decades, telework is still a major challenge for the traditional trade unions. This raises the concern of how effective are trade unions in the rapidly changing working life to respond to the new and emerging risks. This is another reason for scientists to focus further research on the work of trade unions.