Une raison particulière, ou c’est juste les 4 Ricards à midi avant de retourner piloter des engins de chantier ?
La même question revient à chaque fois qu’une cartographie Eurostat est publiée ici : Pourquoi le pays X est il si différent des autres?
Et la même réponse revient à chaque fois : Les chiffres d’Eurostat ne peuvent pas être analysés globalement sans tenir compte des différence méthodologiques propres à chaque pays. Copier-coller depuis Eurostat :
>**Statistics on accidents at work may reflect under-coverage or under-reporting**. Under-coverage exists when the appropriate population is not covered by the data source for accidents, for example when a certain economic sector or employment type is excluded. Under-reporting relates to the situation where an accident occurs but is not reported although the related economic sector is included. The extent of under-coverage of ESAW data can be analysed partially by comparing the reference population (of workers) in ESAW with data derived from the LFS. Under-reporting is more difficult to analyse and establish but some comparisons are available. One method is to compare results from the reporting systems used for the legal obligation to report an accident with systems based on insurance reports; this may indicate under-reporting in the system for the legal obligation of accidents or over-reporting in insurance systems. Another method is to compare (geographically or over time) the ratio of fatal with non-fatal accidents, as the reporting of fatal accidents is thought to be more likely to be accurate due to their severe nature. Comparisons can also be made with data from household surveys, for example from the LFS (which includes periodic ad hoc modules on accidents at work and work-related health problems).
>In addition, changes in the way data are collected and processed in the EU Member States may have an influence on the number and incidence of accidents at work in a particular year. For example, on 30 June 2016 a number of derogations from provisions in the EU regulation governing ESAW ended in several of the Member States. This had a significant effect on the data concerning accidents at work for reference year 2014. For example, for the first time French data included full coverage of all employees in economic sectors covered by NACE Sections A-S. This led to a substantial apparent increase in the number of accidents recorded in France (compared with 2013). In a similar vein, the 2014 data for Belgium included information pertaining to accidents in the public sector for the first time and this also resulted in an increase in the reported number of accidents. In 2016, some correction factors were removed from Greek data by the national statistical office due to methodological issues which caused a very considerable reduction in the number of accidents reported for reference year 2014 (compared with 2013); it is expected that a more complete Greek dataset will be received in the coming years, which should lead to a higher number of reported accidents again. Finally, Dutch and Norwegian data (the latter are not included in the EU total) for the 2014 reference year for non-fatal accidents displayed a significant decrease due to methodological issues.
Pour l’anecdote, un tribunal a statué qu’un mec mort en couchant avec sa collègue pendant un séminaire d’entreprise devait être compté comme un accident du travail, sans surprise on est donc champions d’Europe des queutards.
3 comments
Une raison particulière, ou c’est juste les 4 Ricards à midi avant de retourner piloter des engins de chantier ?
La même question revient à chaque fois qu’une cartographie Eurostat est publiée ici : Pourquoi le pays X est il si différent des autres?
Et la même réponse revient à chaque fois : Les chiffres d’Eurostat ne peuvent pas être analysés globalement sans tenir compte des différence méthodologiques propres à chaque pays. Copier-coller depuis Eurostat :
>**Statistics on accidents at work may reflect under-coverage or under-reporting**. Under-coverage exists when the appropriate population is not covered by the data source for accidents, for example when a certain economic sector or employment type is excluded. Under-reporting relates to the situation where an accident occurs but is not reported although the related economic sector is included. The extent of under-coverage of ESAW data can be analysed partially by comparing the reference population (of workers) in ESAW with data derived from the LFS. Under-reporting is more difficult to analyse and establish but some comparisons are available. One method is to compare results from the reporting systems used for the legal obligation to report an accident with systems based on insurance reports; this may indicate under-reporting in the system for the legal obligation of accidents or over-reporting in insurance systems. Another method is to compare (geographically or over time) the ratio of fatal with non-fatal accidents, as the reporting of fatal accidents is thought to be more likely to be accurate due to their severe nature. Comparisons can also be made with data from household surveys, for example from the LFS (which includes periodic ad hoc modules on accidents at work and work-related health problems).
>In addition, changes in the way data are collected and processed in the EU Member States may have an influence on the number and incidence of accidents at work in a particular year. For example, on 30 June 2016 a number of derogations from provisions in the EU regulation governing ESAW ended in several of the Member States. This had a significant effect on the data concerning accidents at work for reference year 2014. For example, for the first time French data included full coverage of all employees in economic sectors covered by NACE Sections A-S. This led to a substantial apparent increase in the number of accidents recorded in France (compared with 2013). In a similar vein, the 2014 data for Belgium included information pertaining to accidents in the public sector for the first time and this also resulted in an increase in the reported number of accidents. In 2016, some correction factors were removed from Greek data by the national statistical office due to methodological issues which caused a very considerable reduction in the number of accidents reported for reference year 2014 (compared with 2013); it is expected that a more complete Greek dataset will be received in the coming years, which should lead to a higher number of reported accidents again. Finally, Dutch and Norwegian data (the latter are not included in the EU total) for the 2014 reference year for non-fatal accidents displayed a significant decrease due to methodological issues.
Pour l’anecdote, un tribunal a statué qu’un mec mort en couchant avec sa collègue pendant un séminaire d’entreprise devait être compté comme un accident du travail, sans surprise on est donc champions d’Europe des queutards.