Objectives: Despite women's increased representation in the overall workforce, construction remains a male-dominated industry. Prior studies have noted that the hazardous workplace environment combined with a culture that can be discriminatory and openly hostile can threaten women workers' health and safety. However, little information exists about the current physical and psychosocial hazards at work affecting tradeswomen. Methods: We examined differences in workplace exposure between women and men, and the association of these exposures with self-reported stress and work injury, in order to highlight how gendered conditions of work negatively affect tradeswomen's health. A holistic view of health that included the influence of both home and work spheres as well as hazards related to women's social experience was considered. Almost 300 workers (198 tradeswomen and 93 tradesmen) throughout Washington State completed surveys. We used descriptive statistics to compare exposures between genders, and logistic regression to model the association between psychosocial exposures and injury and stress outcomes. Results: We found that women were significantly more likely than men to report high perceived stress (31 and 18%, respectively) and being injured at work in the past year (31 and 12%, respectively). Ten of the 12 work-related psychosocial exposures were found to be associated with either stress (job strain, gender and age discrimination, bullying, work/life balance, isolation, sexual harassment, safety climate, and social support) or injury (gender discrimination, bullying, overcompensation, and sexual harassment) for women. Conclusions: The industry continues to lag in supporting tradeswomen's health and safety needs. This study suggests that multiple exposures (including discrimination, overcompensation, and work/life balance) have an important impact on worker well-being. The findings underscore the complex interaction of gender, psychosocial exposures, and occupational risks, and indicate areas for intervention.
Objectives: Despite women's increased representation in the overall workforce, construction remains a male-dominated industry. Prior studies have noted that the hazardous workplace environment combined with a culture that can be discriminatory and openly hostile can threaten women workers' health and safety. However, little information exists about the current physical and psychosocial hazards at work affecting tradeswomen. Methods: We examined differences in workplace exposure between women and men, and the association of these exposures with self-reported stress and work injury, in order to highlight how gendered conditions of work negatively affect tradeswomen's health. A holistic view of health that included the influence of both home and work spheres as well as hazards related to women's social experience was considered. Almost 300 workers (198 tradeswomen and 93 tradesmen) throughout Washington State completed surveys. We used descriptive statistics to compare exposures between genders, and logistic regression to model the association between psychosocial exposures and injury and stress outcomes. Results: We found that women were significantly more likely than men to report high perceived stress (31 and 18%, respectively) and being injured at work in the past year (31 and 12%, respectively). Ten of the 12 work-related psychosocial exposures were found to be associated with either stress (job strain, gender and age discrimination, bullying, work/life balance, isolation, sexual harassment, safety climate, and social support) or injury (gender discrimination, bullying, overcompensation, and sexual harassment) for women. Conclusions: The industry continues to lag in supporting tradeswomen's health and safety needs. This study suggests that multiple exposures (including discrimination, overcompensation, and work/life balance) have an important impact on worker well-being. The findings underscore the complex interaction of gender, psychosocial exposures, and occupational risks, and indicate areas for intervention.
Authors: Hannah M Curtis; Hendrika W Meischke; Nancy J Simcox; Sarah Laslett; Lily M Monsey; Marissa Baker; Noah S Seixas Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-01-26