[Working condition of pregnant women. Departures from regulation on occupations especially noxious or hazardous to women].

To define the range and kind of discrepancies between regulations and actual state of working conditions and occupations performed by women during pregnancy, a survey was carried out in the population of 2649 women, a representative group of occupationally involved pregnant women in the region of Łódź. The questionnaire analysis provided information on the kind and arduousness of work performed, working hours and conditions in the work environment. Having verified the data obtained from 10% of women, a very high consistency between working conditions described by respondents and evaluated by experts was noted. Its was found that almost 60% of women under study indicated that their working conditions depart from those defined as admissible for women during pregnancy. Of the women who worked only during the first month of pregnancy, 75% of them were employed at workposts, which did not meet the requirements, and nearly half of women who worked during the whole period of pregnancy were employed in inappropriate conditions. The noxiousness most frequently reported by respondents applied to body posture: bending and position with rotated spine (about 40%). This was followed by lifting and carrying various objects (about 30%), prolonged working hours (about 20%), shift work, including night shifts (about 12%), work at conveyor belt and forced work pace (about 20%). Noise that makes it difficult to communicate, local vibration and work with computers over 4 hours daily was reported by 30% and 15% of respondents, respectively. The most common solution to limit the potential effect of hazardous and noxious working conditions on pregnant women was to remove them from work by issuing a sick leave certificates, while the modification of working conditions or shifting them to another post applied only to 14% of women. The results of the study showed that working conditions of pregnant women differed from those described by the State Labor Inspectorate. The discrepancy can be explained by different method of data collection.