CHAPTER I 1.1 INTRODUCTION General labor welfare means “efforts to make life worth living for workmen” fact factor orie iess act act 1948 1948 it prov provid ides es vari variou ouss labo laborr welfa welfare re measu measures res and and it appl applie iess to all all establishment employing 10 or more workers where power is used and 20 or more workers where power is not used, and where manufacturing process is being carried on . It provides for the following, 1.
Labor welfare officers
2.
Health of workers
3.
Safety and welfare of workers
Welfa We lfare re healt health h and and safet safety y measu measures res is the the comb combin inati ation on of psyc psycho holo logi gica cal, l, psychological and environment circumstance that cause a person pers on to truthfully say “ I am satisfied with organization providing welfare schemes, health schemes, safety equipment and safety education. Welfare, Welfare, health and safety measures measures are a set of favorable or unfavorable unfavorable feeling with which Employees view their attitude. Extensive research conducted on welfare, health and safety measure has indicated the factors such as. •
Overall satisfaction about welfare, heath and safety measure
•
Relation with welfare officers
•
Available of the protection
•
Method of safety education
1.2 NEED FOR THE STUDY The area taken for this study is that 'A STUDY ON EMPLOYEES WELFARE, HEAL HE ALTH TH AND AND SAFE SAFETY TY MEAS MEASUR URES ES AT CADS CADS INDI INDIA, A, CHEN CHENNA NAI' I'. The
organization needs information towards employees satisfaction towards welfare, health and safety measures. The research is to provides the various aspects to know the awareness and opinion of each and every employees towards the welfare, health and safety of the organization. The The need need for for this this resea research rch is to prot protect ect work worker erss as well well as negl neglig igen entt from from acci accide dent nts, s, to secur securee for for them them in vari variou ouss cond condit itio ions ns.. These These also also used used to main maintai tain n
1
inspection staff and to make for maintenance of health, safety and also welfare measures in the particular organization.
1.3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES •
To know the extent of awareness about welfare health and safety measures adapted on CADS INDIA.
•
To find availability the of various welfare, health and safety measures in the organization.
•
To find satisfaction level of employee with respect to welfare, heath and safety measures on the organization.
•
To check the awareness of employee about the safety of machinery and equipment on the organization.
•
To know whether the employees are property trained regarding the safety measures on the organization.
•
To determine the correct method of safety education suitable for employees on the organization.
•
To find out the opinion of the employees safety measures adapted by the organization.
•
To know know the the opin opinio ion n of empl employ oyee eess for for which which they they give give impo import rtan ance ce to increase welfare, heath and safety of employees on the organization.
•
To suggest suitable measures to improve the welfare, heath and safety of employees on the organization.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study can be used to understand the following with respects to welfare, health and safety measures of the organization. •
Awareness factor of welfare, health and safety measures.
•
Availability factors of of welfare, health health and safety measures. measures.
2
•
Satisfaction level of welfare, health and safety measures.
•
Opinion to improve the welfare, health and safety measures.
3
CHAPTER II 2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR - OVERVIEW
Today, India is the second fastest growing economy in the world. The Indian construction industry is an integral part of the economy and a conduit for a substantial part of its development investment, is poised for growth on account of industrialization, urbani urbanizat zation ion,, econom economic ic develo developme pment nt and people people's 's rising rising expect expectatio ations ns for improv improved ed quality of living. In India, construction is the second largest economic activity after agriculture. Construction accounts for nearly 65 per cent of the total investment in infrastructure and is expected to be the biggest beneficiary of the surge in infrastructure investment over the next five years. Investment in construction accounts for nearly 11 per cent of India’s Gros Grosss Dome Domest stic ic Prod Produc uctt (GDP (GDP). ). €239 €239.6 .68 8 bill billio ion n is like likely ly to be inve investe sted d in the the infrastructure sector over the next five to 10 years - in power, roads, bridges, city infrastructure, ports, airports, telecommunications, which would provide a huge boost to the construction industry as a whole. Investment into this sector could go up to €93.36 billion by FY2010. With such bullish prospects in infrastructure, affiliated industries such as cement are on a high. Cement consumption, for the first time, is set to exceed the 150-million tonne mark. Reflecting Reflecting the demand for the commodity, commodity, capacity utilization utilization rose to over 100 per cent to touch 102 per cent in January 2007 with dispatches touching 14.10 million tonnes as against the production of 14 million tonnes. As opportunities in the sector continue to come to the fore, foreign direct investment has been moving upwards. The real estate and construction sectors received FDI of €216.53 million in the first half of the current fiscal year. Industry Segments •
Residential (Housing & Development)
•
Real Estate
•
Industrial (Industrial Parks, Factories, Plants, etc.)
•
Corporate (Office, Research Centers)
4
•
Commercial (Retail: Malls, Shops, Showrooms; Hotels; etc. )
•
Infrastructure
•
Roads
•
Railways
•
Urban infrastructure (improved housing, water supply and sanitation, schools,
•
Universities, health and security, etc.)
•
Ports
•
Airports
•
Power
Indian Real Estate Sector
Real Estate is a €8 billion (by revenue) Industry in India. It is projected to grow to €34 billionn by 2010. It has witnessed a revolution, driven by the booming economy, favorable demographics and liberalized foreign direct investment (FDI) regime. Growing at a scorching 30 per cent, it has emerged as one of the most appealing investment areas for domestic as well as foreign investors. The second largest employing sector in India (including construction and facilities management), real estate is linked to about 250 ancillary industries like cement, brick and steel through backward and forward linkages. Consequently, a unit increase in expenditure in this sector has a multiplier effect and the capacity to generate income as high as five times. All-round Development
Rising income levels of a growing middle class along with increase in nuclear families, low interest rates, modern attitudes to home ownership (the average age of a new homeowner in 2006 was 32 years compared with 45 years a decade ago) and a change of attitude amongst the young working population from that of 'save and buy' to 'buy and repay' have all combined to boost housing demand. According to 'Housing Skyline of India 2007-08', a study by research firm, Indices Analytics, there will be demand for over 24.3 million new dwellings for self-
5
living in urban India alone by 2015. Consequently, this segment is likely to throw huge investment opportunities. In fact, an estimated €16 billion investment will be required over the next five years in urban housing, says a report by Merrill Lynch. Simultaneously, the rapid growth of the Indian economy has had a cascading effect on demand for commercial property to help meet the needs of business, such as modern offices, warehouses, hotels and retail shopping centers. Growth in commercial office space requirement is led by the burgeoning outsthecing and information technology (IT) industry and organized retail. For example, IT and ITES alone is estimated to require 150 million sqft across urban India by 2010. Similarly, the organized retail industry is likely to require an additional 220 million sq ft by 2010. Global Majors
With the significant investment opportunities emerging in this industry, a large number of international real estate players have entered the country. Currently, foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into the sector are estimated to be between €3 billion and €3.50 billion. •
Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), the world's leading integrated global real estate services and money management firm, plans to invest around €646 million in the country's burgeoning property market.
•
Dubai-based DAMAC Properties would invest up to €2.9 billion to develop properties in India.
•
Merrill Lynch & Co bought 49 per cent equity in seven mid-income housing projects of India's largest real estate developer DLF in Chennai, Bangalore, Kochi and Indore for €243 million.
•
UAE-based real estate company Rakeen and Chennai-based mineral firm Trimex Group have formed joint venture company - Rakindo Developers - which would invest over €3 billion over the next five years.
•
Dubai-based Nakheel and Hines of the US have tied up with DLF to develop properties in India. DLF has also formed a joint venture with Limitless Holding, a part of Dubai World, to develop a €9 billion township project in Karnataka.
6
•
Gulf Finance House (GFH) has decided to invest over € 1 billion in a Greenfield site close to Navi Mumbai.
Government Initiatives
The Government has introduced many progressive reform measures to unlock the potential of the sector and also meet increasing demand levels. •
100 per cent FDI allowed in realty projects through the automatic route.
•
In case of integrated townships, the minimum area to be developed has been brought down to 10 hectares from 40 hectares.
•
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA) repealed by increasingly larger number of states.
•
Enactment of Special Economic Zones Act.
•
Minimum capital investment for wholly-owned subsidiaries and joint ventures stands at €9 million and €3 million, respectively.
•
Full repatriation of original investment after three years.
•
51 per cent FDI allowed in single brand retail outlets and 100 per cent in cash and carry through the automatic route.
INFRASTRUCTURE Power •
Power generation capacity of 122 GW; 590 bn units produced (1 unit =1kwh), Compound Annual Growth Rate of 4.6% over the last fthe years
•
India has the fifth largest electricity generation capacity in the world
Roads •
An extensive road network of 3.3 m km – the second largest in the world
•
The Golden Quadrilateral (GQ-5846 km of 4 lane highways) North-South & East West Corridors (NSEW-7300 km of 4 lane highways)
Railways
7
•
The premier transport organization of the country - the largest rail network in Asia and the world’s second largest
•
7566 locomotives, 37,840 Coaching vehicles, 222,147 Freight wagons, 6853 Stations, 300 Yards, 2300 Good sheds, 700 Repair shops, 1.54 m Work force
Ports •
12 Major Ports and 185 Minor Ports along 7,517 km long Indian coastline
•
100% FDI under the automatic route is permitted for port development projects
•
Public–Private partnership is seen by the Government as the key to improve Major and Minor ports
Airports •
India has 125 airports; of these, 11 are designated international airports
•
100% FDI is permissible for existing airports; FIPB approval required for FDI beyond 74%
•
Privatization of the Delhi and Mumbai airports is in progress. Expected investment of about €2.4 billion
• New international airports - Bangalore & Hyderabad are being built by private
consortia – total investment of about €411 million •
25 other city airports are being considered for private investment.
Urban Development •
India’s total urban population on 1st March 2007 was 285 million.
•
Allowing up to 100 % foreign direct investment (FDI) under the automatic route in townships, housing, built-up infrastructure and construction-development project.
Opportunities
With the economy surging ahead, the demand for all segments of the real estate sector is likely to continue to grow. The Indian real estate industry is likely to grow from €7 billion in 2005 to €58 billion in by 2015. Given the boom in residential housing, IT, ITeS, organized retail and hospitality industries, this industry is likely to see increased
8
investment activity. Foreign direct investment alone might see a close to six-fold jump to €19 billion over the next 10 years. There are a lot of opportunities that are sprouting up in the construction of Roads, Railways, Airports and Power. Projects worth €1.872 billion are coming up to develop Special Economic Zones. India has a large and growing middle class population of 300 million people, out of which a large section is need on new houses. It is estimated that there is a national housing storage of 41 million units. Retailing is becoming the boom industry with organized retail being a market of €4.494 billion. Water supply and sanitation projects alone offer scope for annual investment of €4.27 billion. The Ministry of Power has formulated a blueprint to provide reliable, affordable and quality power to all users by 2012. This calls for an investment of €54.67 billion in the next five years. The government of India has permitted FDI up to 100% for development of integrated townships in India last year. India's booming infrastructure sector is fuelling demand for all kinds of construction equipment. Before the opening up of the Indian economy, and the entry of international majors, much of infrastructure development and construction in the real estate sector was done manually. But with the infrastructure and construction sectors undergoing dramatic changes – with 60-storeyed sky-scrapers being built in cities like Mumbai, and thousands of kilometers of expressways and highways being laid across the subcontinent- builders and contractors are acquiring sophisticated equipment to execute the multi-million-dollar projects. For the construction equipment sector, which has adapted rapidly to the changed scenario, this is indeed good news, as it paves the way for an exciting future.
2.2 COMPANY PROFILE CADS is a leading international software company specializing in civil and structural engineering design and detailing software. CADS applications are used worldwide by consulting engineers, civil engineering contractors, builders, national and local governments, structural steelwork and rebar fabricators. CADS employs more than 300 staff globally, the vast majority of those working from our India offices and we have been in business for over 40 years. There are more than 5000 CADS customers who use over 50,000 copies of CADS software in 70 countries.
9
CADS India was established in 1996 in Chennai. The office was founded and managed by Mr. K.K Jagadish. CADS global headquarters is located in the UK, with additional offices in the USA and UAE. CADS has an installed world-wide –more than 4000 customers who use in excess of 48,000 copies of CADS supplied programs in more than 70 countries. CADS software has been tried and tested on a wide range of projects including buildings, bridges, airports, water treatment plants and power installations. CADS has a large team of qualified experienced Structural and Civil personss and technicians, software developers and programmers dedicated to continuous progress through innovation and continuous product development. CADS are not only the developer of the world's favorite rebar detailing software CADS RC, but are also one of the biggest users. Support
CADS offer a combination of training, support and a maintenance contract (CADSCover). This ensures that you can fully exploit all that the software solution has to offer the business. Support is provided by the CADS central helpdesk via email, fax and telephone. Rebar detailing
CADS has established an enviable reputation for providing expertise as well as expert software for reinforced concrete detailers. Running in AutoCAD, RebarCAD has been the market leading reinforced concrete detailing software in the UK and around the world for more than 20 years. RebarCAD's success is due to its advanced detailing features and technical excellence, which include integration with design and fabrication software. RebarCAD can detail anything and has been successfully used on all sorts of building, transportation, water, process and power projects including precast concrete elements. CADS are not only the developer of the world's favtheite Rebar / RC detailing software CADS RC, but are also one of the biggest users! CADS provide a global RC detailing service, particularly for the main markets of India, Dubai (UAE), UK, USA and Canada. Modeling, Analysis &Design:
10
RebarCAD delivers real integration via AutoCAD - the industry leading platform. RebarCAD also links to CADS powerful analysis and modelling tools - A3D MAX and SCIA Persons; the latter enabling slabs to be easily designed and detailed. In addition, the results from CADS design programs for concrete beams, columns, bases, slabs etc, can also be imported into RebarCAD, for instant detailing and scheduling to configurable preset styles. Such details can later be amended easily, as required. Design and Detailing for Other Materials
As well as design for reinforced concrete, CADS develop and support a range of software products to suit the full range of design and detailing requirements for steel, timber and other materials. Geotechnical
The CADS range of Ground Personsing applications includes software for designing cantilever and mass concrete Retaining Walls, Sheet Piling, Cofferdams, Slope Stability analysis and Reinforced Slope design. CADS have established an enviable reputation for providing expertise as well as expert software for reinforced concrete detailers. Running in AutoCAD, RebarCAD has been the market leading reinforced concrete detailing software in the UK and around the world for more than 20 years. RebarCAD's success is due to its advanced detailing features and technical excellence, which include integration with design and fabrication software. RebarCAD can detail anything and has been successfully used on all sorts of building, transportation, water, process and power projects including precast concrete elements. AutoCAD:
RebarCAD builds on AutoCAD, the industry standard CAD platform. It fully exploits the stable 2D drawing environment of AutoCAD, tailoring a solution for rebar detailing and bar bending scheduling that meets the stringent requirements of the industry. As an integrated AutoCAD application, RebarCAD adds functionality and toolbars to the AutoCAD system and is supported by quality user manuals and training. If you are a CAD Manager you will find it easy to recruit trained and experienced technicians for such an industry standard solution, whilst the level of support, advice and expertise available through the help desk will impress all users.
11
Global code:
RebarCAD is a global player in the truest sense of the word. Since the orignal software was launched as CADS RC in the UK over 20 years ago, further versions for North America, India and South Africa have been released. High quality output, stability, integration and flexibility have seen the adoption of RebarCAD across diverse worldwide markets. RebarCAD is often the default choice for many international and prestige projects, such as the Burj in Dubai (pictured), the software having earned its’ reliability and consistency credentials. Quality:
RebarCAD maintains a reinforcement database that always reflects exactly what is on the drawing. In addition, all new bars and changes are instantly added to the bar bending schedule which means that checking is reduced and errors virtually eliminated. Additional audit commands detect incomplete or unlabelled bars and ensure compliance with the configured detailing standard. RebarCAD drawings require less manual checking, thus scheduling errors are virtually a thing of the past! Savings:
Rebar detailing can be a slow manual process, with no certainty as to the accuracy or consistency of the eventual drawing output. Scrap and wastage due to inaccurate reinforcement drawings, mistakes in Bar Bending Schedules (BBS) and unutilised offcuts costs the construction industry nearly 10% of its steel consumption each year! Reinforcement detailing and Bar listing has never been easier. RebarCAD helps you accomplish this 30% faster and more accurately than manual methods by creating drawings whilst automating the preparation of BBS. The RebarCAD software really is the solution to prevent the projects bleeding profits. Whether you are a Consultant Persons, Detailing provider, Main Contractor or Rebar Fabricator, then the solution could be RebarCAD. When you use RebarCAD you do so alongside thousands of other Indian and global users . Benefits: •
RebarCAD brings efficiencies and cost savings to consultants, contractors and fabricators alike.
12
•
To help the potential customers evaluate the potential benefits to their organizations we can provide a Savings Evaluation.
•
We can undertake this in a face to face meeting at the offices. This includes a RebarCAD Demo and a detailed session to suit the specific requirements.
•
Booking is easy. Use the contact form, email or telephone us to arrange a meeting with one of the expert consultants.
CADS Privacy Policy •
CADS is committed to protecting the privacy.
•
CADS has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate the firm commitment to privacy.
•
The following discloses the information gathering and dissemination practices for the website at URL: www.scaffolding-software.co.uk
•
CADS do not disclose visitors information to third parties.
•
Any information that you provide us with, whether it be business or personal information (such as the name or address), cannot be seen by third parties.
•
The information we keep is stored on the own computer systems, not on a website.
•
This site may at times contain links to other, third party websites, CADS is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of such websites.
•
This privacy statement is not presented as a legally binding contract.
13
CHAPTER III 3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ‘Research’ means a scientific and systematic for pertinent information on a specific topic. Research is a careful investigation or inquiry especially through search for new facts in any branch of knowledge. Research comprises defecting and redefining problems, formulating hypothesis or suggested solutions, collecting .organizing and evaluating data; making deductions and reaching conclusions; and at last carefully testing the conclusions to determine whether they fit the formulating hypothesis. ‘Methodology’ is defined as “the study of methods by which we gain knowledge, it deals with cognitive processes imposed on research by the problems rising from the nature of its subject matter”
3.2 TYPE OF RESEARCH Descriptive research has been used; it involves surveys and fact findings enquire of different kinds the major purpose of descriptive research is the description of the state of affairs, as it exists at present. The main characteristics of this method are that the state researcher has no control over the variable; he can only report what has happened or what is happening. The methods of research utilized in descriptive research are survey methods of all kinds, including comparative and correlation methods.
3.3
RESEARCH INSTRUMENT The research instrument used in the study “structured questionnaire” structured
questionnaire are those questionnaire in which there are predetermined question relating to the aspect. For which the researcher collect the data. The questions are presented with exactly the same wording and order to all the respondents.
3.4
QUESTIONNARIE DESIGN The structured questionnaire for employee satisfaction organization providing
welfare, health and safety with the following types of questionnaires open ended, closed ended, multiple choice, types of questions.
14
3.5
DATA COLLECTION Data refers to information or facts. It includes numerical figures, non- numerical
figures, descriptive facts, and qualitative information. The task of data collection begins after a research problem has been defined and plan has been decided. The nature of the data is both primary and secondary data. 3.5.1
Primary Data
The primary data are those that are collected through questionnaire and direct personal interview. The questionnaire was framed in such a manner to obtain correct information, graded suitably from the respondents. 3.5.2
Secondary Data
Secondary data has been collected through oral communication. Secondary data about the company profile and details were collected from the company website.
3.6
SAMPLE PROCEDURE Convenience sampling has been used in this study. Convenience sampling is used
for selection of homogeneous sample for the study. It refers to selecting a sample of study objects on convenience. It is a non-probability sampling. Thus research study may include study objects, which are conveniently located. Research findings based on convenient sampling however, cannot be generalized.
3.7
PERIOD OF STUDY
During the period the following ♦
Questionnaire was pre-tested.
♦
Objectives were set and questionnaire was finalized.
♦
Data were collected and recorded.
♦
Data were analyzed and interpreted.
♦
Reports were generated.
3.8
SAMPLING SIZE
15
Due to time and resource constraint the sample size has been taken as 250 for Consultation with the company guide and project guide.
3.9
PILOT SURVEY A pilot survey with 25 samples from employees was conducted for testing the
validity of the questions. It was found that there was no need for changes in the questionnaire and hence the same questionnaire was used for final survey also.
3.10 •
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY Convenience sampling has its own time limitation because the chances of right persons on being selected can be less.
•
Time is the main constraint as it is difficult to meet all the employees of the organisation within a short period.
•
Cost is also the main constrain as this research involves massive amount for the purpose of preparing the report.
16
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4.1
DATA ANALYSIS The data after collection has to be processed and analyzed in accordance with the
outline laid down for the purpose at the time of developing the research plan. This is essential for a scientific study and for ensuring that we have all the relevant data. Processing implies editing. Classification and tabulation of collected data so that they acquiescent to analysis. The term analysis refers to the computation of certain measure along with search for patterns of relationships that exists among data-group s. Thus “in the process of analysis, relationships of differences supporting or conflicting with original or new hypothesis should be subjected to statistical tests of significance to determine with what validity data can be said to indicate any conclusions” Analysis of data in a general way involves a number of closely related operations that are performed with the purpose of summarizing the collected data and organizing them in such a manner that answer the research questions.
17
TABLE 4.1.1
AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS
Age Below 25 yrs 25 – 35 yrs 35 – 45 yrs Above 45 yrs Total
No of Respondents 69 93 51 37 250
Percentage 28 37 20 15 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.1
37%
40
t n e 30 d n 20 o p s e R 10 f o 0 %
28 % 20% 15%
Below 25 Yrs
25-35Yrs
35-45Yrs
Above 45yrs
Age
INFERENCE:
37% of the respondents having their age below 25 yrs and 28% of the respondents having their age 25 – 35 yrs.
TABLE 4.1.2
18
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS
Educational Qualification 10th std 12th std Diploma UG PG Total
No of Respondents 32 47 63 82 26 250
Percentage 13 19 25 33 10 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.2
35 e d 30 n 25 o p 20 s e 15 R f 10 o % 5 0
33% 25% 19% 13%
d S t h t 0 1
10%
d S t h t 2 1
a m o l p i D
U G
P G
Educational Qualification
INFERENCE:
33% of the respondents are under graduates and 25% of the respondents are Diploma holders.
TABLE 4.1.3
EXPERIENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS
19
Experience Less than 1 year 1– 5 yrs 5 – 10 yrs Above 10 yrs Total
No of Respondents 53 96 68 33 250
Percentage 21 38 27 14 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.3
c n e i r e p x E
Above 10yrs
14%
5-10yrs
27%
1-5 yrs
38%
Less than 1 yrs
21% 0
10
20
30
40
% of Respondents
INFERENCE:
38% of the respondents have an experience of 1-5 yrs and 27% of the respondents have an experience of 5-10yrs.
TABLE 4.1.4
AWARENESS ABOUT WELFARE, HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES
Awareness Factor
No of Respondents
20
Percentage
Large extent Some extent Not aware Total
73 119 58 250
29 48 23 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.4
Not Aware
23%
Awareness Factor Some Exent
48%
Large Extent
29% 0
20
40
60
% of Respondents
INFERENCE:
48% of the respondents are having some extent among the awareness of welfare, health and safety measures and 29% of the respondents are having large extent among the awareness of welfare, health and safety measures.
TABLE 4.1.5
AVAILABILITY OF WELFARE MEASURES
Availability of welfare measures
Avail
Not avail
Total
Washing Facility
250
0
250
%
100
0
100
21
Store rooms & Rest Rooms
250
0
250
% First Aid
100
0
100
250
0
250
% Canteens
100
0
100
250
0
250
% Sitting Facility
100 250
0 0
100 250
% Transportation
100
0
100
193
57
250
%
77
23
100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.5 23%
Transportation
77%
r u s Sitting facility a e m e r a Canteen f l e W f o First Aid y t i l i b a l i a Store& Rest rooms v A
0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Washing Facility % of Respondents
100% 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
INFERENCE: •
100% of the respondents having availability of washing facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of store rooms and rest room facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of store rooms and rest rooms facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of canteen facility.
22
•
100% of the respondents having availability of sitting facility.
•
77% of the respondents having availability of transport facility and 23% of the respondents not having availability of transport facility.
23
TABLE 4.1.6
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF WELFARE MEASURES
Neither satisfied Highly Satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
Satisfaction level of welfare measures
Highly satisfie d
Washing
62
74
51
39
24
250
25
30
20
16
9
100
52
107
29
41
21
250
21
43
12
16
8
100
64
80
47
32
27
250
%
26
32
19
13
10
100
Canteens
67
39
22
39
93
250
%
27
16
8
12
37
100
Sitting Facility
88
22
37
62
41
250
%
35
9
15
25
16
100
Transportation
17
28
112
54
39
250
%
6
11
45
22
16
100
Facility % Store rooms & Rest Rooms % First Aid
Dissatisfied Total
INFERENCE: •
30% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of washing facility and 25% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of washing facility.
•
43% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of store room and rest room facility and 21% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of store room and rest room facility.
•
32% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of first aid facility and 26% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of first aid facility.
24
•
37% of the respondents are dissatisfied with satisfaction level of canteen facility and 27% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of canteen facility.
•
35% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of sitting facility and 25% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with satisfaction level of sitting facility.
•
45% of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with satisfaction level of transportation facility and 22% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with satisfaction level of transportation facility.
FIGURE NO. 4.1.6
25
TABLE 4.1.7
PROVIDING OF MEDICAL INSURANCE FACILITY
Medical Insurance option Yes No Total
No of Respondents 203 47 250
Percentage 81 19 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.7
No - 19%
Yes - 81%
INFERENCE:
81% of the respondents are acquired the medical insurance facility and 19% of the respondents are not acquired the medical insurance facility.
26
TABLE 4.1.8
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF MEDICAL INSURANCE SCHEMES
Satisfaction level of Medical Insurance Highly satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total
No of Respondents
Percentage
42 125 37 17 29 250
17 50 15 6 12 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.8 60 50% 50
s t n e 40 d n o p s e 30 R f o 20 %
17%
15%
10
12% 6%
0 Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
Neither Satisfied Highly Dissatified Nor Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction level of Medical insurance
INFERENCE:
50% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of medical insurance schemes and 17% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of medical insurance schemes.
TABLE 4.1.9
27
AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH MEASURES
Availability of Health Measures Cleanliness
Avail 250
Not avail 0
Total 250
% Ventilation & Temperature
100
0
100
250
0
250
% Artificial Humidification
100
0
100
195
55
250
% Lighting
78
22
100
250
0
250
% Drinking Water
100
0
100
250
0
250
% Toilet Facility
100
0
100
250
0
250
%
100
0
100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.9
s e Toilet Facility r u s a e Drinking water m h t l Lighting a e H f o Artificial Humidification y t i l i b Ventilation & Temperature a l i a v Cleanliness A
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100% 22%
78%
0%
100%
0% 0
100% 20
40
60
80
% of Respondents
28
100
120
INFERENCE •
100% of the respondents having availability of cleanliness facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of ventilation & temperature facility.
•
78% of the respondents having availability of artificial humidification facility and 22% of the respondents not having availability of artificial humidification facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of lighting facility
•
100 of the respondents having availability of drinking water facility.
•
100% of the respondents having availability of toilet facility.
29
TABLE 4.1.10
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF HEALTH MEASURES
Neither satisfied Highly Satisfied nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
Satisfaction level of Health measures
Highly satisfie d
Cleanliness
47
117
17
29
40
250
%
19
47
6
12
16
100
Ventilation & Temperature % Artificial Humidification %
103
53
37
42
15
250
41
21
15
17
6
100
44
37
121
19
29
250
18
15
48
7
12
100
Lighting
53
109
45
12
31
250
%
21
44
18
5
12
100
Drinking Water
19
37
26
112
56
250
%
8
15
10
45
22
100
Toilet Facility
41
17
55
32
105
250
%
16
7
22
13
42
100
Dissatisfied Total
INFERENCE: •
47% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of cleanliness facility and 19% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of cleanliness facility.
•
41% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of ventilation & temperature facility and 21% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of ventilation & temperature facility.
•
48% of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with satisfaction level of artificial humidification facility and 18% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of artificial humidification facility.
30
•
44% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of lighting facility and 21% of the respondents are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of lighting facility.
•
45% of the respondents are highly dissatisfied with satisfaction level of drinking water facility and 22% of the respondents are dissatisfied with satisfaction level of drinking water facility.
•
42% of the respondents are dissatisfied with satisfaction level of toilet facility and 22% of the respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with satisfaction level of toilet facility
FIGURE NO. 4.1.10
42% Toilet Facility
22%
u s a Drinking water e m h t l a e Lighting H f o l e v e l Artificial Humidification n o i t c a f Ventilation & s i t a Temperature S
22%
45%
44%
21%
48% 18%
21%
41%
Cleanliness
47%
19% 0
10
20
30 % of Respondents
31
40
50
60
TABLE 4.1.11
AWARENESS OF DANGEROUS MACHINES
Awareness of dangerous machines Aware Not Aware Total
No of Respondents 250 0 250
Percentage 100 0 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.11
Not Aware 0%
Aware - 100%
INFERENCE:
100% of the respondents are aware of the dangerous nature of machines
32
TABLE 4.1.12
TRAINING OPINION REGARDING SAFETY MEASURES
Safety Training Opinion Trained Not Trained Total
No of Respondents 212 38 250
Percentage 85 15 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.12
Not Trained 15%
Trained 85%
INFERENCE:
85% of the respondents are trained with safety training measures and 15% of the respondents are not trained with safety training measures.
33
TABLE 4.1.13
SATISFACTION LEVEL OF TRAINING OF SAFETY MEASURES
Satisfaction level safety Training Highly satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Highly dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total
No of Respondents 63 112 24 34 17 250
Percentage 25 45 10 14 6 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.13
50 s 45 t n e 40 d 35 n o 30 p s e 25 R 20 F 15 O %10 5 0
45%
25% 14%
10%
6%
Highly Satisfied
Satisfied
Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied
Highly Dissatified
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction level of safety training
INFERENCE:
45% of the respondents are satisfied with satisfaction level of safety training measures and 25% of the respondents are highly satisfied safety training measures.
34
with satisfaction level of
TABLE 4.1.14
METHOD OF SAFETY EDUCATION
Method of Safety Education Posters Highlighting Unsafe Practice Safety Demonstration Safety Lectures Safety Films Total
No of Respondents 19 65 99 41 26 250
Percentage 8 26 40 16 10 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.14
n o i t a Safety Films c u d Safety lectures E y t e f Safety demonstration a S f o Highlighting unsafe practice s d o Posters h t e M
10% 16% 40% 26% 8% 0
10
20
30
40
50
% of Respondents
INFERENCE:
40% of the respondents are prescribed safety demonstration with the method of safety education and 26% of the respondents are prescribed highlighting unsafe practice with the method of safety education.
35
TABLE 4.1.15
OPINION ABOUT SAFETY MEASURES
Opinion about Safety Measures Excellent Good Average Poor Very Poor Total
No of Respondents 29 107 57 39 18 250
Percentage 12 43 23 15 7 100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.15
s e r Very Poor u s a e m Poor y t e f a Average S f o Good n o i n i p Excellent O
7% 15% 23% 43% 12% 0
10
20
30
40
50
% of Res pondents
INFERENCE:
43% of the respondents are having good opinion among the opinion of safety measures and 23% of the respondents are having average opinion among the opinion of safety measures.
36
TABLE 4.1.16
RANKING OF WELFARE MEASURES
Welfare Measures/ Ranks Washing Facility
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6
Total
26
9
19
115
46
35
250
10
4
8
46
18
14
100
48
36
27
21
11
107
250
% Store rooms & Rest Rooms % First Aid
19
14
11
8
5
43
100
112
34
17
27
52
8
250
%
45
14
7
10
21
3
100
Canteens
55
99
11
41
25
19
250
%
22
40
4
16
10
8
100
Transportation
27
12
101
56
33
21
250
%
11
5
40
22
13
9
100
Sitting Facility
42
125
31
17
26
9
250
%
17
50
12
7
10
4
100
INFERENCE:
•
46% of the respondents preferred (rank 4) for washing facility of welfare measures.
•
43% of the respondents preferred (rank 6) for store rooms and rest rooms facility of welfare measures.
•
45% of the respondents preferred (rank 1) for first aid facility of welfare measures.
•
40% of the respondents preferred (rank 2) for canteen facility of welfare measures.
•
40% of the respondents preferred (rank 3) for transportation facility of welfare measures.
37
•
50% of the respondents preferred (rank 2) for sitting facility of welfare measures.
FIGURE NO. 4.1.16
Transportation
50%
Sitting facility s e r u s a e m Canteen e r a f l e W f o First Aid g n i k n a R Store& Rest rooms
40%
40%
45% 43%
46%
Washing Facility
0
10
20
30 % of Respondents
38
40
50
60
TABLE 4.1.17
RANKING OF HEALTH MEASURES
Health Measures/ Ranks
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6
Total
Cleanliness
121
32
46
24
18
9
250
%
48
13
18
10
7
4
100
Ventilation & Temperature % Artificial Humidification %
112
8
27
34
52
17
250
45
3
11
14
21
6
100
33
21
56
12
27
101
250
13
8
22
5
11
41
100
Lighting
107
48
36
21
27
11
250
%
43
20
14
8
11
4
100
Drinking Water
15
45
29
21
31
109
250
%
6
18
11
8
13
44
100
Toilet Facility
42
9
31
125
17
26
250
%
17
4
12
50
7
10
100
FIGURE NO. 4.1.17
60 50
% 8 4
s t n e 40 d n o p 30 s e R f o 20 %
% 5 4
% % 3 1 4 4
% 4 4
% 0 5
10 0 Cleanliness
Ventilation & Temperature
Artificial Humidification
Lighting
Ranking of Health measures
39
Drinking water
Toilet Facility
INFERENCE: •
48% of the respondents preferred (rank 1) for cleanliness facility of health measures.
•
45% of the respondents preferred (rank 1) for ventilation and temperature facility of health measures
•
41% of the respondents preferred (rank 6) for artificial humidification facility of health measures.
•
43% of the respondents preferred (rank 1) for lighting facility of health measures.
•
44% of the respondents preferred (rank 6) for drinking water facility of health measures.
•
50% of the respondents preferred (rank 4) for toilet facility of health measures.
40
TABLE 4.1.18
RANKING OF SAFETY MEASURES Safety measures/ Ranks Protection
Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
Factors % Maintenance Factors % Precaution Factors % Working condition Factors %
Total
112
25
49
64
250
45
10
19
20
100
51
65
29
105
250
20
26
12
42
100
34
41
118
57
250
14
16
47
23
100
124
65
42
19
250
50
26
17
7
100
FIGURE NO. 4.1. 18
Working condition factors s e r u s a e m y t e f a s f o g n i k n a R
50% 47%
Precaution factors
42%
Maintainence factors Protection factors
45% 0
10
20
30
40
% of Respondents
41
50
60
INFERENCE: •
45% of respondents preferred (rank 1) for protection factor of safety measures
•
42% of the respondents preferred (rank 4) for maintenance factor of safety measures
•
47% of the respondents preferred (rank 3) for precaution factor of safety measures.
•
50% of the respondents preferred (rank 1) for working condition factor of safety measures.
42
4.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The role of statistics is to function as a tool in designing research, analyzing its data and drawing conclusions there from the important statistical tools used in this analysis are chi-square test, weighted average test, K.S test and Kendall's concordance test. 4.2.1 CHI – SQUARE TEST
The Chi – square test is important test amongst the several tests of significance developed by statisticians. Chi – square, symbolically written as χ2 is a statistical measure used in the context of the sampling analysis for comparing a variance to a theoretical variance. Uses of CHI – SQUARE
Chi – square is a very versatile test used both as a non-parametric and a parametric measure. As a non-parametric measure it is used as: ♦
As a test goodness of fit.
♦
As a test of independence.
♦
To establish confidence intervals for the variance of a population.
Steps involved in applying Chi – Square test
1.
Calculated the expected frequencies on the basis of the given hypothesis or on the basis of null hypothesis.
Expected frequency of any cell
E=
2.
( Row total for therow that cell ) × ( Column total for thecolumn that cell ) ( Grand Total )
Obtain the difference between observed and expected frequencies and find out the 2
square of such differences. Calculate ( Oij − E ij ) . 3.
Divide the quality
(O
ij − Eij )
2
obtained as stated above by the corresponding
expected frequencies or the group frequencies.
43
4.
( Oij − E ij ) Find the summation of
2
E ij
∑ ( Oij − Eij )
values or what we call
2
This is the required χ2 values.
E ij
The χ2 value obtained as such should be compared with relevant table of χ2 and the Interface is drawn. Precautions about Chi – Square test
To avoid making incorrect interface from chi – square hypothesis test, the general rule applied is that an expected frequency of less than 5 in one cell of a contingency table it is too small to use. So it is combined in order to get an expected frequency of 5 or more. 4.2.2 WEIGHED AVERAGE
Where the relative importance of the different items is not the same, weighted arithmetic mean is computed. The term “weight” stands for the relative importance of the difference items. The formula for the calculation is: XW =
∑ WX ∑W
Where XW = The weighted arithmetic mean. X = The variable values. W = The weights. 4.2.3 KOLMOGROV-SMIRNOV TEST
This test is used for comparing the distribution of an ordinal scale. The test is concerned with degree of agreement between the distribution and some specified theoretical distribution. It determines whether the score in the sample can be reasonably thought to have to come from a population having to come from a population having theoretical distribution. Formula
D Maximum = { Fo (x)-Fe(x)}
44
Where, F (o)= Observed cumulative frequency F(x) = Expected cumulative frequency For a sample (n) at 5% level significance, the critical value of D can be given by =
1.36 n
Decision arrived from the test is based on calculated value. Comparing with the critical value (table value), if the calculated value is higher we accept the alternative hypothesis. Similarly if the calculated value is less than the critical value we accept null hypothesis 4.2.4 KENDALL'S CONCORDANCE TEST Kendall's coefficient of concordance
Kendall's coefficient of concordance, represented by the symbol w, is an important non-parametric measure of relationship. It is used for determining the degree of or individuals. When there are only two sets of ranking of N objects, we generally work out spearman's coefficient of correbtoon, but Kendal's coefficient Pf concordance(W) is considered an appropriate measure of studying the degree of associates among three more sets of rankings. The basics of Kendall's coefficient of concordance is to imagine how the given data would look of there were no agreement among the several sets of ranking , abd then to imagine have at would look, of there were perfect agreement exists between judges, (w) equal's to 1. When maximum disagreement exists ,(w) equals to 0. It may be noted that two judges complete in an index of divergence of the actual agreement shown on the data from the perfect agreement the procedure for computing and interpreting Kendall's coefficient of concordance (w) is as follows: 1.
All the objects, N should be ranked by all K judges on the usual fashion. this information may be put in the form of a K by N matrix.
2.
For each object determine the sum of ranks (Rj) assigned by all the K judges.
3.
Determine Rj and then obtain the value of S as under S-Σ(Rj-Rj)2 work out the value of W by working following formula.
45
W=
S 1 K 2 ( N 3 − N ) − K ( N − 1) 12
The significant of W can be tested by using Kendall's Coefficient of concordance table on X2 depending upon the size of N and K. Null hypotheses: W=0, Alternative hypothesis: W =0. Kendall's Coefficient of concordance applied to find out whether the ranking is done for the brand awareness satisfactory or not.
46
CHI-SQUARE TEST NO: 1 Aim
:
To test test the the relat relation ionshi ship p betwee between n educa educatio tional nal qual qualifi ificat cation ionss and awarene awareness ss about welfare, health & safety measures among the employees.
H0
:
There There is no signi signific fican ance ce relati relation onsh ship ip betwee between n educ educati ation onal al qualif qualific icati ation onss and and awar awaren eness ess abou aboutt welf welfare are,, heal health th & safet safety y measu measures res amon among g the the employees.
H1
:
There There is is signif significa icance nce rela relatio tionsh nship ip betwe between en educa educatio tional nal qual qualifi ificat cation ionss and awareness about welfare, health & safety measures among the employees.
Educational Qualification / Awareness about W,H&S th 10 12th Diploma UG PG Total
Large extent
Some extent
Not aware
Total
9 14 18 24 8 73
16 22 30 39 12 119
7 11 15 19 6 58
32 47 63 83 26 250
CALCULATION OF CHI-SQUARE
Observed Frequency
9
16
7
32
14
22
11
47
18
30
15
63
24
39
19
82
8
12
6
26
73
119
58
250
10
15
7
32
13
23
11
47
Expected Frequency
47
19
29
15
63
23
39
20
82
8
13
5
26
73
119
58
250
0
E
(0 - E)
(0 - E)2
(0 - E)2/ E
9
10
-1
1
0.100
16
15
1
1
0.067
7
7
0
0
0
14
13
1
1
0.077
22
23
-1
1
0.043
11
11
0
0
0
18
19
-1
1
0.053
30
29
1
1
0.034
15
15
0
0
0
24
23
1
1
0.043
39
39
0
0
0
19
20
-1
1
0.050
8
8
0
0
0
12
13
-1
1
0.077
6
5
1
1
0.200 0.744
Calculated
χ
2
value = 0.744
Degree of freedom = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (5 – 1) (3 – 1) = 8. Tabl Tablee valu valuee @ 5% leve levell of Sign Signif ific ican ance ce leve levell and and degr degree ee of free freedo dom m at 8 is 15.507
RESULT
Calculated value (0.744) is less than that of table value (15.507), null hypothesis (Ho)is accepted.
CONCLUSION
48
This This implie impliess that that there there is no signif significan icance ce relatio relationsh nship ip betwee between n educati educationa onall qualif qualificat ication ion and awaren awareness ess about about welfare welfare,, health health and safety safety measure measuress among among the employees.
49
CHI-SQUARE TEST NO: 2 Aim
:
To test the relati relations onship hip betwee between n exper experien ience ce and and awaren awareness ess abou aboutt welfar welfare, e, health and safety measures among the employees
H0
:
There There is no signif significa icanc ncee relati relation onsh ship ip betwe between en exper experie ienc ncee and and awaren awareness ess about welfare, health & safety measures among the employees.
H1
:
Ther Theree is sign signif ific ican ance ce rela relati tion onsh ship ip betw betwee een n expe experi rien ence ce and and awar awaren enes esss about welfare, health & safety measures among the employees.
Experience / Awareness about W,H&S
Large extent
Some extent
Not aware
Total
Less than 1 yrs 1 – 5 Yrs 5 – 10 Yrs Above 10 yrs Total
16 28 20 9 73
25 46 32 16 119
12 22 16 8 58
53 96 68 33 250
CALCULATION OF CHI-SQUARE Observed Frequency
16
25
12
53
28
46
22
96
20
32
16
68
9
16
8
33
73
119
58
250
15
25
13
53
30
45
21
96
21
33
16
68
7
16
8
33
73
119
58
250
Expected Frequency
0 16
E 15
(0 - E) 1
50
(0 - E)2 1
(0 - E)2/ E 0.067
25 12 28 46 22 20 32 16 9 16 8
25 13 30 45 21 21 33 16 7 16 8
0 -1 -2 1 1 -1 -1 0 2 0 0
0 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 0
0 0.077 0.133 0.022 0.048 0.048 0.030 0 0.571 0 0 0.996
Calculated x2 value = 0.996 Degree of freedom = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (4 – 1) (3 – 1) = 6. Table value @ 5% level of Significance level and degree of freedom at 6 is 12.592
RESULT
Calculated value (0.996) is less than that of table value (12.592), null hypothesis (Ho) is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance relationship between Experience and awareness about welfare, health and safety measures among the employees.
CHI-SQUARE TEST NO: 3 Aim
:
To test the relationship between experience and medical insurance opinion among the employees.
H0
:
There is no significance relationship between experience and medical insurance opinion among the employees.
H1
:
There is significance relationship between experience and medical
51
insurance opinion among the employees.
Experience/ Medical Insurance Opinion
Yes
No
Total
Less than 1 yrs
43
10
53
1 – 5 Yrs
78
18
96
5 – 10 Yrs
55
13
68
Above 10 yrs
27
6
33
Total
203
47
250
CALCULATION OF CHI-SQUARE
Observed Frequency
43
10
53
78
18
96
55
13
68
27
6
33
203
47
250
42
11
53
80
16
96
55
13
68
26
7
33
203
47
250
Expected Frequency
0 43
E 42
(0 - E) 1
52
(0 - E) 2 1
(0 - E)2/ E 0.024
10 78 18 55 13 27 6
11 80 16 55 13 26 7
-1 -2 2 0 0 1 -1
1 4 4 0 0 1 1
0.091 0.050 0.250 0 0 0.038 0.143 0.596
Calculated x2 value = 0.596 Degree of freedom = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (4 – 1) (2 – 1) =3. Table value @ 5% of significant level and degree of freedom at 3 is. 7.815.
RESULT
Calculated value (0.596) is less than the table value (7.815), so Ho is accepted. CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance relationship between experience and medical insurance opinion among the employees.
53
CHI SQUARE TEST NO: 4 Aim H0 H1
:
To test the relationship between experience and training factor opinion
:
among the employees. There is no significance relationship between experience and training
:
factor opinion among the employees. There is significance relationship between experience and training factor opinion among the employees.
Experience/Training
Trained
opinion
Not trained
Total
Less than 1 year
46
7
53
1-5 yrs
81
15
96
5-10 yrs
57
11
68
Above 10 yrs
28
5
33
Total
212
38
250
CALCULATION OF CHI- SQUARE Observed Frequency
46
7
53
81
15
96
57
11
68
28
5
33
212
38
250
45
8
53
79
17
96
59
9
68
29
4
33
212
38
250
Expected Frequency
0 46 7 81
E 45 8 79
(0 - E) 1 -1 2
54
(0 - E) 2 1 1 4
(0 - E)2/ E 0.022 0.125 0.051
15 57 11 28 5
17 59 9 29 4
-2 -2 2 -1 1
4 4 4 1 1
0.235 0.068 0.444 0.034 0.250 1.229
Calculated x2 value =1.229. Degree of freedom = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (4 – 1) (2 – 1) = 3. Table value @ 5% of significant level and degree of freedom at 3 is. 7.815.
RESULT
Calculated value (1.229) is less than the table value (7.815), so H o is accepted. CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance relationship between experience and Training factor opinion among the employees.
55
KENDALL'S CONCORDANCE COEFFICIENT TEST NO: 1 :
To test whether the ranks are dependant or independent to maintain the
H0
:
health of the employees The ranks are independent to maintain the health of the employees.
H1
:
The ranks are independent to maintain the health of the employees.
Aim
Health measures/ Ranks Cleanliness Ventilation & Temperature Artificial humidification Lighting Drinking water Total Facility
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Rank 6
121 32
32 24
46 121
24 9
18 46
9 18
24
18
9
46
32
121
46 18 9
121 9 46
18 32 24
32 121 18
9 24 121
24 46 32
R i
1 1 3 1 6 2 14
3 6 5 2 2 6 23
2 4 2 3 4 3 18
4 3 6 5 5 1 24
5 2 4 4 3 5 23
6 5 1 6 1 4 23
Total R i R j (R i - R j) (R i - R j )2
14 20.5 -6.5 42.25
23 20.5 2.5 6.25
18 20.5 -2.5 6.25
24 20.5 3.5 12.25
23 20.5 2.5 6.25
23 20.5 2.5 6.25
Calculated value (S) = 79.5
W=
S 1 K 2 ( N3 − N ) 12
56
R j 21 21 21 21 21 21
123
79.5
W=
W=
79.5 1 × 6 2 ( 63 − 6 ) 12 79.5 1 × 36 ( 216 − 6 ) 12 =
=
79.5 1 × 36 ( 210 ) 12
79.5
1 × 7560 12 79.5 = = 0.126 630 Table value S @ 5% level for K = 6 and N = 6 is 221.4 Calculated value < Table Value, Therefore W is insignificant.
RESULT
Calculated value (0.126) is less than that of table value (221.4), (H o)is accepted.
CONCLUSION
Hence we conclude that the ranks are independent to maintain the health of the employees.
57
KENDALL'S CONCORDANCE COEFFICIENT TEST NO: 2 :
To test whether the ranks are dependant or independent to maintain the
H0
:
welfare of the employees. The ranks are independent to maintain the welfare of the employees.
H1
:
The ranks are dependant to maintain the welfare of the employees.
Aim
Welfare measures/ Ranks Washing Facility Store & rest rooms First aid Canteens Transportation Sitting facility
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Rank 6
26 48
9 36
19 27
115 21
46 11
35 107
112 55 27 42
34 99 12 125
17 11 101 31
27 41 56 17
52 25 33 26
8 19 21 9
R i
4 2 1 2 4 2 15
6 3 3 1 6 1 20
5 4 5 6 1 3 24
1 5 4 3 2 5 20
2 6 2 5 3 4 22
3 1 6 4 5 6 25
Total R i R j (R i - R j) (R i - R j )2
15 21 -6 36
20 21 -1 1
24 21 4 16
20 21 -1 1
22 21 1 1
25 21 4 16
Calculated value(S) = 71
W=
W=
S 1 K 2 ( N3 − N ) 12 71 1 × 6 2 ( 63 − 6 ) 12
58
R j 21 21 21 21 21 21
126
71
W=
71 1 × 36 ( 216 − 6 ) 12 =
=
=
71 1 × 36 ( 210 ) 12
71 1 × 7560 12 71 630
= 0.113
Table value S @ 5% level for K = 6 and N = 6 is 221.4 Calculated value< Table Value, Therefore W is insignificant.
RESULT:
Calculated value (0.113) is less than that of table value (221.4), (H o) is accepted.
CONCLUSION:
Hence we conclude that the ranks are independent to maintain the welfare of the employees.
59
KENDALL'S CONCORDANCE COEFFICIENT TEST NO: 3 :
To test whether the ranks are dependant or independent to maintain the
H0
:
safety of the employees. The ranks are independent to maintain the safety of the employees
H1
:
The ranks are dependant to maintain the safety of the employees.
Aim
Safety measures/ Ranks Protection factors Maintenance factors Precaution factors Working condition factors
Rank 1 112 51 34 124
Rank 2 25 65 41 65
Rank 3 49 29 118 42
Rank 4 64 105 57 19 R j
1
4
3
2
10
3
2
4
1
10
4
3
1
2
10
1
2
3
4
10
R i
9
11
11
9
Total R i
9
11
11
9
R j
10
10
10
10
(R i - R j)
-1
1
1
1
(R i - R j )2
-
1
1
1
Calculated value (S) = 4 W=
W=
W=
S 1 K 2 ( N3 − N ) 12 4 1 × 42 ( 43 − 4 ) 12 4 1 × 16 ( 64 − 4 ) 12
=
4 1 × 16 ( 60 ) 12
60
40
4
=
=
4 1 × 960 12 4 80
= 0.050
Table value S @ 5% level for K = 4 and N = 4 is 49.5 Calculated value< Table Value, Therefore W is insignificant.
RESULT
Calculated value (0.050) is less than that of table value (49.5), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
Hence we conclude that the ranks are independent to maintain the safety of the employees.
61
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 1
Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between age and
satisfaction level of medical
:
insurance factors among the employees. There is no significance difference between age and satisfaction level of
:
medical insurance factors among the employees. There is significance difference between age and satisfaction level of medical insurance factors among the employees.
Age/ Satisfaction level of Medical insurance Below 25 yrs 25 – 35 yrs 35 – 45 yrs Above 45 yrs Total
Neither Highly Satisfied Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Total
12
34
10
5
8
69
15
47
14
6
11
93
9
25
8
3
6
51
6
19
5
3
4
37
42
125
37
17
29
250
Calculation of weighted Average Age/ Neither Satisfaction Weight Highly Satisfied Highly level of Satisfied Dissatisfied Avg. Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Medical Value Dissatisfied insurance W 5 4 3 2 1 3.55 Below 12 34 10 5 8 25 yrs 3.53 25 – 35 15 47 14 6 11 yrs 3.56 35 – 45 9 25 8 3 6 yrs 3.54 Above 6 19 5 3 4 45 yrs
Weighted Average and Rank
62
Weighted Average 3.55 3.53 3.56 3.54 F 3.56 3.55 3.54 3.53 14.18
CF 3.56 7.11 10.65 14.18
F0(x) 0.25105 0.50141 0.75105 1
E 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 14.20
Rank II IV I III
CE 3.55 7.10 10.65 14.2
Fe (x) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.00105 0.00141 0.00105 0
D max
Calculated value = 0.00141 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.00141) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between age and satisfaction level medical insurance factors among the employees.
63
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 2
Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between age and satisfaction level of safety training
:
among the employees. There is no significance difference between age and satisfaction level of
:
safety training among the employees. There is significance difference between age and satisfaction level of safety training among the employees.
Age/ S.L of Safety Training
Below
Neither Highly Satisfied Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 17 31 7 9 5
Total 69
25 yrs 25 – 35
23
42
9
13
6
93
yrs 35 – 45
13
23
5
7
3
51
yrs Above
10
16
3
5
3
37
45 yrs Total
63
112
24
34
17
250
Calculation of Weighted Average Age/ S.L of Safety Highly Satisfied Training Satisfied W Below 25 yrs 25 – 35 yrs 35 – 45 yrs Above 45 yrs
Neither Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 3 2 1 7 9 5
Weight Avg value
5 17
4 31
23
42
9
13
6
3.68
13
23
5
7
3
3.71
10
16
3
5
3
3.68
Weighted Average and Rank
64
3.67
Weighted Average 3.67 3.68 3.71 3.68
F 3.71 3.68 3.68 3.67 14.75
CF 3.71 7.39 11.07 14.75
F0(x) 0.252 0.501 0.751 1
E 3.69 3.69 3.69 3.69 14.76
Rank IV III I II
CE 3.69 7.38 11.07 14.76
Fe (x) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.002 0.001 0.001 0
D max
Calculated value = 0.002 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.002) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between age and satisfaction level o f safety training among the employees.
65
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 3
Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between educational qualification and safety
:
education opinion among the employees. There is no significance difference between educational qualification and
:
safety education opinion among the employees. There is significance difference between educational qualification and safety education opinion among the employees.
Educational Qualification / Safety Educational Opinion 10th Std 12th Std Diploma UG PG Total
Posters
Highlighting Safety Safety unsafe Demonstration Lectures practice
2 4 5 6 2 19
9 12 16 21 7 65
13 19 25 32 10 99
5 8 10 14 4 41
Safet y
Total
Films
3 4 7 9 3 26
32 47 63 82 26 250
Calculation of Weighted Average Educational Qualification / Safety Posters Educational Opinion W 5 th 10 Std 2 th 12 Std 4 Diploma 5 UG 6 PG 2
Highlighting Safety Safety unsafe Demonstration Lectures practice 4 9 12 16 21 7
3 13 19 25 32 10
2 5 8 10 14 4
Weighted Average and Rank
Weighted Average 3.06 3.09 3.03
66
Rank I II IV
Safet y Films 1 3 4 7 9 3
Weighted Avg Value
3.06 3.09 3.03 3.01 3.04
3.01 3.04
F 3.09 3.06 3.04 3.03 3.01 15.23
CF 3.09 6.15 9.19 12.12 15.23
F0(x) 0.203 0.404 0.603 0.796 1
E 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 3.05 15.25
V III
CE 3.05 6.10 9.15 12.20 15.25
Fe (x) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.003 0.004 0.003 -0.004 0
Dmax
Calculated valued (Dmax) = 0.004 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.004) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between educational qualification and safety education opinion among the employees.
67
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 4
Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between welfare measures and satisfaction level of
:
welfare measures among the employees. There is no significance difference between welfare measures and
:
satisfaction level of welfare measures among the employees. There is significance difference between welfare measures
and
satisfaction level of welfare measures among the employees.
Welfare measures/satisfaction level of W.M
Washing Facility Store & Rest Rooms First aid Canteens Sitting facility Transportation
Neither Highly Satisfied Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 62 74 51 39 24 52 107 29 41 21 64 80 47 32 27 67 39 22 29 93 88 22 37 62 41 17 28 112 54 39
Total 250 250 250 250 250 250
Calculation of Weighted Average Welfare measures/satisfaction level of W.M W Washing Facility Store & Rest Rooms First aid Canteens Transportation Sitting facility
Neither Weight Highly Satisfied Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied Avg Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied value 5 4 3 2 1 62 74 51 39 24 3.44 3.51 52 107 29 41 21 64 80 47 32 27 3.48 67 39 22 29 93 2.83 3.22 88 22 37 62 41 17 28 112 54 39 2.72
Weighted Average and Rank
Weighted Average 3.44 3.51 3.48 2.83
68
Rank III I II V
3.22 2.72 F 3.51 3.48 3.44 3.22 2.83 2.72 19.20
CF 351 6.99 10.43 13.65 16.48 19.20
F0(x) 0.183 0.364 0.543 0.711 0.858 1
E
3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 19.20
IV VI CE 3.2 6.4 9.6 12.8 16 19.2
Fe (x) 0.167 0.333 0.5 0.667 0.833 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.016 0.031 0.043 0.044 0.025
Dmax
Calculated value (Dmax) = 0.004 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.004) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between Welfare measures and Satisfaction level of welfare measures among the employees.
69
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 5
Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between health measures and satisfaction level of
:
health measures among the employees. There is no significance difference between health measures and
:
satisfaction level of health measures among the employees. There is significance difference between health measures and satisfaction level of health measures among the employees.
Health measures/satisfaction Highly Satisfied level of H.M Satisfied
Cleanliness Ventilation & Temperature Artificial humidification Lighting Drinking water Total Facility
Neither Satisfied Highly Dissatisfied Nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 17 29 40 37 42 15
Total
47 103
117 53
44
37
121
19
29
250
53 19 41
109 37 17
45 26 55
12 112 32
31 56 105
250 250 250
250 250
Calculation of Weighted Average Health measures/satisfaction Highly Satisfied level of H.M Satisfied W Cleanliness Ventilation & Temperature Artificial humidification Lighting Drinking water Total Facility
Neither Satisfied Highly Dissatisf Weight Nor Dissatisfied ied Avg value Dissatisfied 3 2 1 3.41 17 29 40 37 42 15 3.75
5 47 103
4 117 53
44
37
121
19
29
3.19
53 19 41
109 37 17
45 26 55
12 112 32
31 56 105
3.56 2.40 2.43
Weighted Average and Rank
Weighted Average 3.41 3.75
70
Rank III I
3.19 3.56 2.40 2.43
F 3.75 3.56 3.41 3.19 2.43 2.40 18.74
CF 3.75 7.31 10.72 13.91 16.34 18.74
F0(x) 0.200 0.390 0.572 0.742 0.872 1
IV II VI V
E 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 18.72
CE 3.12 6.24 9.36 12.48 15.6 18.72
Fe (x) 0.167 0.333 0.5 0.667 0.833 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.033 0.057 0.072 0.075 0.039 0
Dmax
Calculated valued (Dmax) = 0.075 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.075) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between health measures and satisfaction level of health measures among the employees.
71
KOLMOGROV SMIRNOV DMAX TEST NO: 6 Aim H0 H1
:
To test the difference between safety education and opinion of safety
:
measures among the employees. There is no significance difference safety education and opinion of safety
:
measures among the employees. There is significance difference safety education and opinion of safety measures among the employees.
Safety education /opinion of safety measures Posters Highlighting unsafe practice Safety demonstration Safety lectures Safety films Total
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor
Total
7 13
27 48
14 26
10 17
5 8
63 112
3 4 2 29
10 15 7 107
5 8 4 57
4 5 3 39
2 2 1 18
24 34 17 250
Excellent
Good
Average
Poor
Very Poor
Weight
5 7 13
4 27 48
3 14 26
2 10 17
3
10
5
4 2
15 7
8 4
Calculation of Weighted Average
Safety education / opinion of safety measures W Posters Highlighting unsafe practice Safety demonstration Safety lectures Safety films
Weighted Average and Rank
Weighted Average 3.33 3.37
72
Rank IV II
Avg value
1 5 8
3.33 3.37
4
2
3.33
5 3
2 1
3.41 3.35
3.33 3.41 3.35
F 3.41 3.37 3.35 3.33 3.33 16.79
CF 3.41 6.78 10.13 13.46 16.79
F0(x) 0.203 0.404 0.603 0.802 1
V I III
E 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 3.36 16.80
CE 3.36 6.72 10.08 13.44 16.80
Fe (x) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
F0(x-Fe(x) 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.002 0
Dmax
Calculated valued (Dmax) = 0.004 Table value @ 5% level of Significance
=
1.36
=
n
1.36 250
= 0.086 RESULT
Calculated value (0.004) is less than the table value (0.086), so H o is accepted.
CONCLUSION
This implies that there is no significance difference between safety education and opinion of safety measures among the employees.
73
4.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4.3.1
GENERAL FINDINGS
•
37% of the employees having their age below 25 yrs.
•
33% of the employees are under graduates.
•
38% of the employees having the experience of 1-5 yrs.
•
48% of the employees are having some extent among the awareness of welfare, health and safety measures.
•
All the employees having availability of washing facility.
•
All the employees having availability of store rooms and rest room facility.
•
All the employees having availability of store rooms and rest rooms facility.
•
All the employees having availability of canteen facility.
•
All the employees having availability of sitting facility.
•
77% of the employees having availability of transport facility.
•
30% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of washing facility.
•
43% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of store room and rest room facility
•
32% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction levels of first aid facility.
•
37% of the employees are dissatisfied with satisfaction level of canteen facility.
•
35% of the employees are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of sitting facility.
•
45% of the employees are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with satisfaction level of transportation facility.
•
81% of the employees are acquired the medical insurance facility.
•
50% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of medical insurance schemes.
•
All the employees having availability of cleanliness facility.
74
•
All the employees having availability of ventilation & temperature facility.
•
78% of the employees having availability of artificial humidification facility.
•
All the employees having availability of lighting facility.
•
All the employees having availability of drinking water facility.
•
All the employees having availability of toilet facility.
•
47% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of cleanliness facility.
•
41% of the employees are highly satisfied with satisfaction level of ventilation & temperature facility.
•
48% of the employees are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with satisfaction level of artificial humidification facility.
•
44% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of lighting facility.
•
45% of the employees are highly dissatisfied with satisfaction level of drinking water facility.
•
42% of the employees are dissatisfied with satisfaction level of toilet facility
•
All the employees are aware of the dangerous nature of machines
•
85% of the employees are trained with safety training measures.
•
45% of the employees are satisfied with satisfaction level of safety training measures.
•
40% of the employees are prescribed safety demonstration with the method of safety education.
•
43% of the employees are having good opinion among the opinion of safety measures.
•
46% of the employees preferred (rank4) for washing facility of welfare measures.
•
43% of the employees preferred (rank 6) for store rooms and rest rooms facility of welfare measures.
•
45% of the employees preferred (rank 1) for first aid facility of welfare measures.
75
•
40% of the employees preferred (rank 2) for canteen facility of welfare measures.
•
40% of the employees preferred (rank 3) for transportation facility of welfare measures.
•
50% of the employees preferred (rank 2) for sitting facility of welfare measures.
•
48% of the employees preferred (rank 1) for cleanliness facility of health measures.
•
45% of the employees preferred (rank 1) for ventilation and temperature facility of health measures
•
41% of the employees preferred (rank 6) for artificial humidification facility of health measures.
•
43% of the employees preferred (rank 1) for lighting facility of health measures.
•
44% of the employees preferred (rank 6) for drinking water facility of health measures.
•
50% of the employees preferred (rank 4) for toilet facility of health measures.
•
45% of employees preferred (rank 1) for protection factor of safety measures.
•
42% of the employees preferred (rank 4) for maintenance factor of safety measures.
•
47% of the employees preferred (rank 3) for precaution factor of safety measures.
•
50% of the employees preferred (rank 1) for working condition factor of safety measures.
4.3.2
STATISTICAL FINDINGS
♦
There is no significance relationship between educational qualification and awareness about welfare, health and safety measures among the employees.
♦
There is no significance relationship between experience and awareness about welfare, health and safety measures among the employees.
♦
There is no significance relationship between experience and medical insurance opinion among the employees.
76
♦
There is no significance relationship between experience and training factor opinion among the employees.
♦
The ranks are independent to maintain the health of the employees.
♦
The ranks are independent to maintain the welfare of the employees.
♦
The ranks are independent to maintain the safety of the employees.
♦
There is no significance difference between age and satisfaction level of medical insurance factor among the employees.
♦
There is no significance between age and satisfaction level of safety training option among the employees.
♦
There is no significance between educational qualification and safety education opinion among the employees.
♦
There is no significance difference between welfare measures options and satisfaction level of welfare measures.
♦
There is no significance difference between health measure option and satisfaction level of health measures among the employees.
♦
There is no significance difference between safety education and opinion of safety measures among the employees.
4.4 SUGGESTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS •
Many of the employees are not much aware of welfare, health and safety measures provided by the organisation, hence the suggestion made to the organization to provide the awareness factor to the large extent for the employees.
•
In the organization, the transportation facilities is given for the only senior employees, hence the suggestion made to the organization to provide the transport facility to all the employees including the trainee of the employees.
•
In the organization, the artificial humidification facility avail to some department, hence the suggestion made to the organization to provide the artificial humidification to the entire department to maintain good health for the employees.
77
•
The satisfaction level of safety training are not up to the satisfaction level for the employees in the organization, so the recommendation made to the organization to provide effective safety training to the employees.
•
The organization is recommended to give the safety measures for the employees to prevent accident.
4.5 CONCLUSION One clear indication in this study is that majority of the employees are aware of the welfare, health and safety measures. From the findings, medical insurance facility and transportation facility are provides to only senior employees in the organization. From the findings, most of the employees are aware of dangerous nature of machines and equipments. in the organization. One clear indication in this study is that most of the employees are properly trained by the employers in the organization. Since, the organization is in the good condition there will be some problem raised in the organization due to the poor opinion about the safety measures and the satisfaction level of welfare, health and safety measures are mostly dissatisfied with the employees. So there should be properly maintenance of the above three measures for the employees in the organization.
78
QUESTIONNAIRE 1.
Personal information:
a) Name
:
b) Age
:
____________________________________
Below 25 yrs
25-35 yrs
35 – 45 yrs
Above 45 yrs.
c) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION:
10th Std
12th Std
Diploma
UG
d) DESIGNATION
: __________________________________
e) EXPERIENCE
:
2.
PG
Less than 1 yr 5-10 yrs
1-5 yrs Above 10 yrs.
To what extent, you are aware of welfare, health and safety measures adopted by your organization?
3.
Large extent
Not Aware
Some extent
Can you please specify the welfare measure available in your organization? a) Washing facility
:
Avail
Not Avail
b) Store rooms & Rest rooms
:
Avail
Not Avail
c) First Aid
:
Avail
Not Avail
d) Canteens
:
Avail
Not Avail
e) Sitting facility
:
Avail
Not Avail
f) Transportation
:
Avail
Not Avail
79
4.
What is your level of satisfaction regarding the welfare measures offered by your organization ?
Welfare measures/ Satisfaction level
Highly satisfied
Neither satisfied Nor dissatisfied
Satisfied
Highly dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Washing facility Store rooms & Rest rooms First Aid Canteens Sitting facility Transportation 5.
Whether any medical insurances provided to the employees in your organization? Yes
No
If yes (Specify) _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________
6.
Are you satisfied with the medical insurances provided by the organization?
Highly satisfied
Neither satisfied Nor dissatisfied
7.
8.
Satisfied
Highly dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Can you specify the health measures available in your organization? a) Cleanliness
:
Avail
Not Avail
b) Ventilation & Temperature
:
Avail
Not Avail
c) Artificial humidification
:
Avail
Not Avail
d) Lighting
:
Avail
Not Avail
e) Drinking water
:
Avail
Not Avail
f) Toilet facility
:
Avail
Not Avail
What is your level of satisfaction regarding the health measures offered by your organization?
80
Health measures/ Satisfaction level
Highly satisfied
Neither satisfied Highly Satisfied Dissatisfied Nor dissatisfied dissatisfied
Cleanliness Ventilation & Temperature Artificial humidification Lighting Drinking water Toilet facility 9.
Are you aware of the dangerous nature of machines and equipment in your organization?
Aware
Not Aware
(if aware Goto Q.No.10)
10.
Have you been properly trained by the employers regarding the safety measures?
11.
12.
13.
Trained
Not Trained
What is your level of satisfaction about the training of safety measures?
Highly satisfied
Neither satisfied Nor dissatisfied
Highly dissatisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
In your opinion, which method of safety education is suitable for employees?
Poster
Highlighting unsafe practice
Safety demonstration
Safety lectures
Safety films
What is your opinion about the safety measures adopted by the organisation?
Excellent
Good
Poor
Very poor
81
Average
14.
In your opinion which of the welfare measures are important to increase the motivation and moral of employees in your organisation? (Rank accordingly)
Welfare measures/ Rank Washing facility
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Rank 6
Store rooms & Rest rooms First Aid Canteens Transportation Sitting facility 15.
In your opinion which of the health measures are important to maintain the health of the employees in your organisation? (Rank accordingly)
Health measures/ Rank Cleanliness
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank 4
Rank 5
Rank 6
Ventilation & Temperature Artificial humidification Lighting Drinking water Toilet facility
16.
In your opinion, which of the safety measures are applicable to maintain the safety of the employees in your organisation? (Rank accordingly)
Safety measures/ Rank Protection factors
Rank 1
Rank 2
Maintenance factors Precautions
82
Rank 3
Rank 4
Working condition factors 17.
What is your suggestion for improving the welfare, health & safety measures for employees? Welfare ________________________________________________ Health _________________________________________________ Safety _________________________________________________
83
